SARJOO PRASAD versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 324 · Decided: 16-12-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

Bata Shoe 
Co. (P) Ltd, 
v. 
Ganguly 
Wanchoo J. 
1960 
December I6, 
324 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
are concerned, namely, Jagdish Lal (respondent 31), 
L. Choudhary (respondent 60), Mohd. Mansoor (respon-
dent 6), Ram Kuber Das (respondent 9), Rama.sis (res-
pondent 15), Mohd. Zafir (respondent 19), Mohd. Islam 
(respondent 20), Mohd. Zafir (respondent 22), Rajesh-
war Prasad (respondent 26 ), Chirkut (respondent 27), 
Lal Das (respondent 43),.Inderdip (respondent 47) and 
Mohd. Nazir (respondent 58) and confirm the order of 
the tribunal with respect to them. In the circum-
stances the parties will bear their own costs of this 
Court. 
Appeal partly allowed. 
SARJOO PR.ASAD 
v. 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
(J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J. c. SHAH JJ.) 
Food Adulteration-Sale of adulterated oil by servant-Servant, 
whether liable-Mens rea, if necessary-Second offence-Sentence, 
lesser than minimum prescribed when can be given-Prevention of 
Food Adulteration Act, I954 (37 of I954) ss. 7, r6. 
The appellant was an employee of one T, a vendor of edible 
oils. He was found to have sold adulterated mustard oil and 
he and T were prosecuted for an offence under s. 7 read with 
s. r6 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Both 
were found guilty; Twas sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. zoo, but 
in view of a previous conviction the appellant was sentenced to 
one year's rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 2,000 fine, the mini-
mum prescribed bys. r6(ii). The appellant contended: (i) that 
a servant who sold food on behalf of his employer was not liable 
unless it was known that he had done so with the knowledge 
that the food was adulterated, and (ii) that there were special 
and adequate reasons justifying the imposition of a penalty less 
than the minimum prescribed for a second offence. 
Held, that s. 7 of the Act enjoins everyone, whether an 
employer or a servant, not to sell adulterated food, and anyone 
who contravenes this provision is punishable under s. 16 ¥.•ith-
out proof of mens rea. 
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
325 
Re: S. Moses, I. L. R. (1959) Mad. 418, disapproved. 
Held, further, that the facts that the appellant was a mere 
employee of T, that it had not been sho\Vn that he had made 
any profit for himself, and that T had been sentenced to a fine 
of Rs. 200 only, were special and adequate reasons within the 
meaning of the proviso to s. r6(ii) to justify the imposition of a 
penalty less than the minimum prescribed by s. t6(ii). 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Ap-
peal No. 147 of 1959. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated July 21, 1959 of the Allahabad High 
Court in Criminal Revision No. 503 of 1958 arising 
out of the judgment and order dated March 27, 1958, 
of the Sessions ,J ndge, Allahabad, in Criminal Appeal 
No. 745 of 1957. 
C. B. Agarwala and K . .P. Gupta, for the appellant. 
G. C. Mathur and C . .P. Lal, for the respondent. 
1960. December 16. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
SHAH, J.-The appellant, SarjooPrasad was convict-
ed by P. M. Aga, Magistrate First Class, Allahabad 
of an offence under s. 7 read with s. 16 of the Preven-
tion of Food Adulteration. Act, 1954 (37 of 1954 )-
hereinafter referred to as the Act-and in view of a 
previous conviction for a similar offence was sentenced 
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to 
pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. The conviction and sentence 
were confirmed in appeal by the Court of Session at 
Allahabad and by the High Court of Judicature at 
Allahabad in .revision. The appellant has appealed 
to this court with special leave under Art. 136 of the 
Cons ti tu ti on. 
· 
The appellant was an employee of.one Thakur Din 
who carries on business at 92-C, Mirganj, Allahabad 
as a vendor of edible oils and provisions. On Septem-
ber 22, 1956, a Foc·:l Inspector of the Allahabad Muni-
r:ipality purcha&ed from the appellant a sample of 
mustard oil exposed for sale in the shop which on 
a11alysis was found to be adulterated with linseed oil. 
Thakur Din and the appellant were prosecuted in the 
court of the First Class Magistrate, Allahab:i.d for 
Sarjoo Prasad. 
v. 
The Stale of 
Uttar Pradesh 
Shah ]. 
Sarjoo Prasad 
v. 
1'he Stale of 
l/tlar Prad~slt 
Shah ]. 
326 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
selling adulterated food.· 
The Magistrate convicted 
Thakur Din and the appellant and sentenced Thakur 
Din to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and the appellant to 
suffer rigorous imprisonment for 

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