MOHINDER KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 529 · Decided: 15-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, B.N. SRIKRISHNA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

MOHINDER KUMAR 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
JANUARY 15, 2004 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
B 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954: 
S. 7 rlw s.16, ss. 19(3) and WA-Prosecution u/s 7 read with s. 16- C 
Salt of a particular brand sold by shopkeeper-Found deficient of requisite 
quantity of iodine-Prosecution of shopkeeper-Accused contending that he 
purchased the article from the appellant. the original vendor-Prosecution of 
appellant-First accused acquitted and appellant convicted by trial court-
Conviction and sentence confirmed by High Court-Held, the trial court 
proceeded on the assumption that the appellant admitted genuineness of the D 
Bill and that he conceded that he had sold the adulterated article to the first 
accused-But the evidence on record shows that the bill produced by the first 
accused was standing in the name of a third person and there is no evidence 
to show as to who was that person-In the absence of specific evidence as to 
whom invoice was issued and to whom adulterated article was sold by the E 
appellant it is difficult to prove complicity of the appellant-Unfortunately, 
neither the trial court nor the appellant adverted to this aspect of the case-
Appellate court had ample power to invoke section 20(A) of the Act to prosecute 
the person who was really guilty of the offence punishable under the Act-As 
the genuineness of the bill is not proved before the court, the conviction and 
sentence against the appellant is not sustainable under the law-Conviction 
and sentence set aside. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
760 of 1997. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.7.1997 of the Punjab and G 
Haryana High Court in Crl. R. No. 637 of 1997. 
R.S. Jain, Durgainder Singh and S. Singh for the Appellant. 
D.P. Singh, V.K. Garg and Ms. A. Toor for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
529 
H 
530 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] I S.C.R. 
A 
Th is appeal is against the conviction and sentence of the appellant for 
the offence punishable under section 7 read with section 16 of the Food 
Adulteration Act. The appellant was prosecuted before the Chief Judicial 
Magistrate, Jagadhari along with first accused Naresh Kumar and he was 
found guilty of the charge against him. The trial Magistrate acquitted the first 
B accused Naresh Kumar and the present appellant was found guilty and was 
sentenced to undergo the imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of 
Rs. 1000 in default fu1ther imprisonment for a period of 3 months. He preferred 
an appeal before the Sessions Court which confirmed the conviction and 
sentence. The revision filed before the High Court was dismissed in-limine. 
C 
Th(: prosecution case is that on 24.2.1988 PW-I Food Inspector of 
Chhachhrauli along with Doctor working in the local authority visited the 
shop of 1st accused Naresh Kumar and purchased 5 packets of Iodized Tata 
Salt. He prepared samples in accordance with law and sent the same for 
examination by the Public Analyst. Report of the analyst indicated that the 
D sample did not conform to the standard prescribed as it did not contain 
iodine. After the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst the first accused 
was informed of the result. Thereafter, first accused filed application for, 
sending remaining sample for the examination by the Central Food Laborato~ 
The report from the Central Food Laboratory also disclosed that the sample 
did not conform to the standard prescribed under the Act and the Rules as it 
E contained only 5.0 ppm of iodine as against the required quantity of 15.0 
ppm of iodine. The Food Inspector launched prosecution against the first 
accused. At the time of purchase he had served the first accused with Form-
VI notice and in the notice it was indicated that Iodized Tata Salt purchase 
from Mis. Ajudhia Prasad Kapoor marketing Maharaja Agarsen Marg,Yamuna 
p Nagar (Ambala) against Bill No. 4987 dated 27.1.1998. But Food Inspector 
did not imp lead original vendor as an accused. During the course of the trial, 
first accused Naresh Kumar filed application under section 14-A of the Food 
Adulteration Act and furnished the address and other particulars of the present 
appellant. The appellant herein was thus impleaded as the second accused. 
G 
On the side of the prosecution PW-I the Food Inspector and PW-2 
Doctor, who accompanied the PW-I were examined. During the course of 
the cross-examination of PW-I the Bill 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.