LexMUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, AMRITSAR versus HAZARA SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
914 MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, AMR!T~A'.fl v. HAZARA SINGH March 12, 1975 [A. N. RAY, CJ., K. K. MATHEW AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.] Practice-Criminal appeal under Art. 136 of C01:stitution--lmpropcr i111·oca1io11. A milk vendor was prose1;uted for alleged adulteration, on the ground that there was a minimal shortfall. in the percentage of "milk solids not fat" pres- cribed by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The trial court convicted bu! on appeal, the Sessions Judge made a passing reference to an obiter obse:rva- tion of this Court in the Malwa Cooperative Milk Union Ltd., Indore v. Bilwrilal, (Criminal Appeal No. 235 dated' 14-s.1967) iguored the minor .deficiency observing that it was in the nature of permissible error and acquitted the accused. An appeal against acquittal was dismissed by the High Court. Dismis~ing th·~ appeal \o this Court, B c HELD : ln the Malwa Cooperatii'e Milk Union Ltd. v. Bihari/al this Court while holding that 1he revisional power of the High Court i~ reserved for setting right miscarriage of justice and not for being invoked by private prose- cutors made an obiter observation, to drive home the point, that the case itself D was s~ marginal that the difference from the set standard was microscopic. The Sessions Judge was perhaps wrong in tearing that passage out of context and devising a new defence out of it in respect of. food adulteration cases. But an appeal with special leave under Art. 136 should not have been filed merely to get a declaration that a casual statement in a judgment of the Court i> not its ratio. [915 E-G, 916 E] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 1972. E Appeal by special leave from the judgme',1t and order dated the 12th June, 1972 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 883 of 1972. Naunit Lal, for the appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F KRISHNA IYER, J. We regret to begin this judgment with the observation that the high -purpose of reserving the Supreme Court's jurisdiction for substantial legal issues affecting the nation, should not be taken by cases of lesser co>asequence. The present criminal appeal is a signal instance of litigation of little public interest being brought up here, holding up other momentous causes. G The facts .1-.petty milk Vf:ndo~ ~as prosecute~ for alleged adulteration, proof of Which rested on a mm1mal shortfall m the percentage of 'milk solids not fat' going by the prescribed standard (Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteratio 1,1 Rules). The plea of the accused that, if at all there might have been a marginal error, while the analysis was conducted H was rightly rej.ected an~ the Magistrate sentenced him to imprisonment and fine as laid down m s.7 and s.16(1) of the Preveation of Food B c D E F G H MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE \I, IMZARA SINGH (Krishna Iyer,!.) 915 Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act). The milk vendor hopefully appe:aled and impressed by the fact that the milk solids were of the required standard and the 'milk solids not fat' were slightly sub-standard, the Sessions Judge ignored 'the minor deficicacy which is in the nature of permissible error' and acquitted the accused. The Municipal Committee pursued the matter to the High Court in appeal. But a Division Bench of that Court dismissed it in limine, presumably as t.oo•trivial for an appeal against acquittal. However, the appellant has arrived in this Court claiming that this is a test case and maki',1g it appear that some important question of law hangs on the decision, although it was represented, at the time special leave was sought by the counsel, 'that his clients will not press for the convic- tion of the respondent'. This latter representation itself is suggestive of the absence of seriousness surroundi1,1g this particular case. Apart from this teU-tale circumstance, the facts we have set out above show that nothing grave or gre:at in law, by way of miscarriage of justice or general public importance is involved. This is one of those routine cases, comparatively insignificant, where one court has acquitted and the High Court has felt it unjustified for appellate reversal. It is of paramount importaace that this Court's time should not be consumed by questions which •are trifles. It is plain from submission of counsel that the appella1~t's grievance is not so much against the acquittal as against a pa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.