LexMOHAMMED YAMIN versus UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
3511
MOHAMMED YAMIN
v.
Sl'A'fl!; OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER
April 26, 1972
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND K. K. MATHEW, JJ.J
Prevention of Focd Adul,teration Act, 37 of 1954 ss. 7
and 16-
De{initi(Jn of jaggery in Para A. 07,.05 of Rules made under Act-
St!lndard. laid down for ;aggery whether applies to Shakkar-Shakkar
whether jaggery-If dealer sells adulterated Shakkar he com/nits offence
under s. 16 read with s. 7 of Act even if lhe Shakkar was not stored for
sal~l.: to Food Inspector is a sale for the purpose of s. 16(1) of the
Ac•.
The Food Inspector purcha8ed 1 t seers oi Shakkar from the appellant
after paying i!S price.
He divided the sample into three parts, gave one
to the a)>pellant and retained the other two with him. One of the samples
rl>lained was. sent to the Public Analyst for examination.
The Public
Analyst found it to be adul'erated becau•e of excess of extraneous matter.
The Food Inspector tiled ~ complaint before the Magistrate who comicted
!hf> appellant for an offence under s. 16 read with secltlon 7 of the Pre-
veation of Food Adulteration Act 1954.
In appeal the Sessi<>ns Judge
acquitted the appellant but in further appeal to High Court the appellant
w~ again convi<;ted.
He appealed to this Court by special leave.
The
contentions on behalf of the appellant were : (i) that Shakklr is not
jaggery. and since rio standard of quality has been prescribed for Shakkar
wider the rules fra·med under the Act the S'h:ak'kar was not adulterated;
(ii) that he had not kept the Shakkar for sale but for manufacturing
Bab out of it and therefore the convici011. under s. 16 read wih section 7
of the Act wa• bad.
HELD: (i) Shakkar is a product obtained by following processing
juce pressed from out of sugar cane and !hetefore in view Qf the defini-
tion of jaggery in para A:07 .05 of Appendix B of the rules ft'amed under
the Act Shakkar is jaggery.
In Chambers 20th
~ntury Dictionary
(reviBed edition) also the Hindi equivalent of jaggery given as Shakkar.
Therefoce the finding of the High Court on the basis of •he report of
the Analyst that the Shakkar did not conform to the otan.dard of quality
prescribed for jaggery and was thus adulterated was correct and had to
be maintained. f353 B-FJ
(2) The finding· of the High Court was that the Shakkar was kept
by the appellant for the purpose of sale and not for the purpose of
manufacturing Rab out of it and that the attempt of the appellant was
to oell the Shakkar as an article of food after mixing Sbelkhari in it.
There was no reason to think that the finding was wrong.
But assuming
that th<. finding was wrong and that the appellant kept the Shakkar ndt
for sale but for manufacturing Rab oot of it, the appellant would still be
guilty. If Shakkar is an article of food, it does not matter whether the
appellant kept ir for sale or for manufacturing Rab out of it provided the
appellant had sold it. And a sale to the Food Inspector is a sale for the
purpose of 16( I) of the Act. (,C-D]
The Food Inspector, Calicut Corp&ration v. Charukanttil Gopalan and
another, 119711 2 S.C.R. 322, followed and applied.
The appeal must accordingly be dismissed.
c
F
"l;
.il.Jf
G
' d.
!"
H
•k
••
A
MOHD. YAMIN v. STATE (Mathew, J.)
3 5.1
CJUMINAL APPELLATE. JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
253 of 1968.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
April 12, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Govt.
Appeal No. 13 of 196' and Criminal Govt. Appeal No. IO of 1966.
B
B. P. Maheshwari and Sobhagma/ Jain, for the appellant.
c
D
0. P. Ra1111, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Madlew, J, This, appeal, by special leave, is against a judgment
of the High Court of Allahabad by which it restored the ord~r
of the Magistrate convicting the appellant of an offence under
section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulte-
ration Act (Act 37 of 1954), hereinafter called the 'Acf1 and
sentencing hiJ11 to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment a~d
pay a fine of Rs. l,0001- and in default of payment of fine to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months,
after reversing the order passed by the Sessions Jud,ge in appeal
acquitting him of the offence.
On June 13, 1963, Head Constable Baboo Khan was on
patrol duty. He happened to come to the Chakki of one Abdul
Razaaq. There he found a heap of Shakkar and some labourers
E
mixing Shelkhari in itExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.