LexRAMDAS BHIKAJI CHAUDHARI versus SADA NAND & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
849
RAMDAS BHIKAJI CHAUDHARI
v.
SADA NANO & ORS.
October 3, 1979
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. P. SEN, JJ.J
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act-S. 16(1) (a)(i)-High Court followed
an earlier decision of Supreme Court and acquitted the respondents-Earlier
decision over-ruled by Supreme Court-Effect of previous decision.
The respondents were convicted and sentenced on ·a charge of contravention
of s.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
Purporting to
foilow the decision of this Court in Rajlal Das Pamnani's case the: High Court
held that since the quantity of the sample sent to the Public Analyst was below
500 gms. the respondents were entitled to acquittal and allowed their revision
petitions. The appellant, the Food Inspector who prosecuted the respondents,
came in appeal to this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution.
It was contended on behalf of the respondents that ( 1) this was not a ·fit
case for exercise of discretionary powers under Art. 136 and (2) since at the
relevent time the decision of this Court in Pamnani's case was the law declared
by this Court it was that decision which should. be applied to this· case.
Allowing the appeal
HELD : Acquittal of the resJ>(lDdenla by the High Cnurt was erroneous.
[853 DJ
1. In Alassary Mohammed the cases which this Court was considering were
really test cases which only invited a final decision of this Court on the interpre-
B
tation of r. 22. Most of the counsel appearing for the prosecution did not
challenge the order of acquittal passed by the High Court. While laying down
the law on test cases this Court refused to set aside the order on the ground that
the acquittal was not ·challenged by the prosecution. [851 GJ
The present case is not a test case. Since Alassary Mohammed has decided
the point of law against the view of the High Court, the acquittal of the respon-
dents by the High Court was wrong on a point of law. TI!e question of exercis-
P
ing discretion particularly against econon1ic offenders does not arise. [851 DJ
2. In Alassary Moha,nnied's cas~; this Court, overruling its earlier decision in
Raj/al Pamnani's case held that the amendment made to r. 22, by introducing
r. 22B, was not really an amendment in the strict sense of the term but merely
a clarification of what was intended by the original r. 22, that r. 22 was direc-
tory and that it was for the Public Analyst to say whether the quantity of
G·
sample sent to hi~ was sufficient or not for making necessary analysis. [850 EJ
State of Kera/a v. Alassary Mohammed, [1978J i SCR 820 explained.
3. Whenever a previous decision of this Court is overruled by a larger bench
the previous decision is completely wiped out ·and the court would have to
de_cide all sribsequent cases according to the law laid down by the later decision.
[853 CJ
ff.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 329 of
1979.
.
8,50
SUPREME_COURT REPORTS
[1980] 1 S.C.R.
[.A
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment anJ Order dated
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
2-9-1976 of the Bombay High Court in Cr!. Rev. Appln. No. 310/75.
V. N. Ganp1de for the appellant.
N. N Keshwani and Ramesh N. Keshwam: for the Respondents 1-2.
M. C. Bhandare and M. N. Shroff for Respondent No. 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
. FAZAL ALI, J.-This appeal.by special leave is directed against a
judgment of the Bombay High Court acquitting the respondents of the
charge under s. 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act.
The respondents were convicted under s. 16(1) (a) (i) of the
Prevention of FOod Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' R.I.
and ·fined Rs. 2,000/- as modified by the Sessions Judge in appeal.
The High Court accepted all the facts proved in thf'l case and found that
the confectionary drops sold by the accused to the Food Inspector by
way of sample contained cool tar dye. The High Court however, ac-
quitted the respondents only on the ground that under Rule 22 as it
stood before the amendment required· that the minimum quantity of
500 gms. of the sample seized should be sent for ana.Jysis.
This_ rule
was subsequently amended by Rule 22B.
In fact as pointed by this
Court in the case of State of Kerala etc. etc. v. Alassary Mohammed
etc etc.(') the amendment by Rule 22B was not really an amend·
ment_ in the strict sense of the term bnt merely a clarification of what
was really intended by the original Rule 22.
The High CourExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.