LexMURLIDHAR MEGHRAJ LOYA ETC. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'
I
MURLIDHAR MEGHRAJ LOYA ETC.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.
July 19, 1976
[V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.J
Prevention of Food Adulteration Art, 1954-S. 16, pioviso-Scope of.
Accused pleaded guilty-If lesser sentence could be. awarded.
l
An analysis of a sample of klzurasani oil from the appellants' mill collected
by the Food Inspector showed 30 % groundnut oil content amounting to contra-
vention of r. 44(a) of the Rules which prohibits sale of a mixture of two or
more edible oils as an edible oil. The appellants were charged with an offence
under s. 2(1) of the Act read with ss .. 7 and 16(1)(a) and r. 44(~). The
appellants having pleaded guilty, each of them was sentenced to pay a small
fine.
On revision, the High Court converted the offence into one under s. 2(i)(a)
read with s. 16 (1) and enhanced the sentence to a miriimum of six months
imprisonment and fine of rupees one thousand on the ground that the offence
committed by them fell within s. 16(1 )(a) and did not fall within the proviso
to that section.
On appeal to this Court it was contended that even assuming s. 2(i) (a)
is all comprehensive it must be read as the genus and thereafter sub-clauses (b)
to (e) fall under two broad categories namely adulteration with injurious sub-
stances and adulteration with innocent additions or the substance sold merely
violates a standard or degree of purity prescribed and in this case the offence
would fall uhder the non-injurious typ_, covered by s. 2(i,) {l).
· Dismissing the appeal,
HELD: 1. (a) Slub-clause (a) of s. 2( 1) has a widl'l sweep.
There causes
be ahy doubt that if the article .asked for is 100% klwrasani oil and the article
sold is 70% khurasani oil and 30% groundp.ut oil, the supply 'is not of the
nature, substance· and quality which it purports or is represented to be'. [4 El
(b) It is not possible to invoke the proviso to s. 16 ( 1) and the High Court
is legally right in its conversion of the• provisio111 for conviction and e'nhancement
of the sentence. Though s·. 2 (i) (a) is read speciously and if the facts. alleged
are accommodated by the definition of adulteration under that sub-clause,
s. 16(1) is attracted.
The first proviso to s. 16(1) wil! be attracted if
and
only if s. ZJ(i) (1) applies. [4 Fi-G]
In the present case the facts disclose that the offence is both under s. 2(i) (a)
and under·s. 7(v) for breach of r. 44(e). Section 2(i)(I) is repelled on the
facts andJ this is hot a case where either s. 2(i) (I) or r. Al7.12 applies.
Z.(a) The proviso cannot apply in extenuation and the High Court was
right in convicting the appellants. Judicial compassion can play upon the situa-
tion only if the offence is under s. 16(1 )(a)(i) and the adulteration is one
under s. 2(i) (I). The proviso applies if the offence is under cl. (a)(ii), that
is to say, the offence is not one of adulteration but is made up of a contrnvention
of the other provisions of the Act or of any rule made thereunder.
Since in this
case the offence falls under s. 2(i'){a) proviso (ii) has no application. [5 E-Fl
(b) The judicial jurisdiction to soften the sentence arises if the offence of
adulteration falls only under s. 2 ( i )(!). This case does not fall under this
sub-clause.
[5 GJ
[The Court drew attention to (-a) the propriety of accepting by the prosecu-
tion find the Courts the accused's plea of guilty of a lesser offence in dangerous
economic crimes and food offences and (b) in view of the fact that a substantial
number of cases of the kind were withdrawn by the Government because
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
A
invariably groundnut oil is observed in Khurasani oil, the
Government
m.ay
consider whether in the circumstances of this case it is not a matter for exercise
of its commutation powers l.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 314-
315 of 1976.
Appeals by special leave from the Judgment and
order dated
5-4-1975 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revision Appln.
No. 1115 /73.
M. C. Bhandare, (Mrs.) Sunanda Bhandare, M. S. Narasimhan,
A. K. Mathur and A. K. Sharma, for the Appellants.
M. N. Phadke and M. N. Shroff, for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J ,:__Judicial fluctuations in sentencing and societal
seriousness in punishing have combined to persuade Parliament to pres-
cribe inflexible, judge-proof, sentencing minima Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.