SATYA NARAYAN AGARWAL versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 669 · Decided: 26-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 'I 
SA TY A NARAYAN AGARWAL 
A 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM 
APRIL 26, 2007 
[DR. ARIJITPASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
B 
~ 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 433/Prevention of Food 
Adulteration Act, 1954; Ss. 7 and 16(1): 
Food adulteration-Chilli .powder-Adulterated-Trial Court found c 
the accused shopkeeper guilty of committing the offence punishable under 
Section 7 r/w Section 16(1) of the 1954 Act and sentenced him accordingly-
Appeal was dismissed by the first appellate Court-Second appeal dismissed 
by High Court-Application uls/ 433 dismissed by the appropriate 
Government-Appeal-Held: Dismissed on merit-Appellant may, if so D 
advised, challenge the order passed by the State Government uls. 433 Cr.P.C. 
•. _.I. 
A sample of chilli powder was collected by the food Inspector from the 
shop of the appellant. The sample was found to be adulterated. The trial Court 
convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 7 read with 
section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him E 
to imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. An appeal 
preferred against the order of the trial Court was dismissed by the Court of 
Sessions. The Revision Petition was dismissed by the Single Judge of the 
High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
1 
F 
Appellant contended that the High Court should have directed release 
or'the appellant on probation, or instead of custodial sentence, sentence of 
fine could have been imposed. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. In the instant case, it is pointed out by the counsel for the G 
-
,,I. 
respondent that an application in terms .:if Section 433 of the Code was made 
which has been rejected. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly 
dismissed However, the appellant, may, if so advised, challenge the order stated 
669 
H 
670 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A to have been passed by the State Government under Section 433 of the Code. 
l 
[Paras 11 and 12) (672-8-C) 
B 
c 
D 
N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara (1997) 9 SCC 101 
and Santosh Kumar v. Municipal Corporation & Anr., (2000) 9 SCC 151, 
referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 629 of 
2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.82001 in the High Court of 
Assam at Gauhati in Cr. R.P. No. 208/93. 
Nilofar Qureshi, Shankar Divate and Vipin Kumar, Mumtaz Ahmad for 
the Appellant. 
J.R. Luwang, (for Mis Corporate Law Group) for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned 
Single Judge of the Guwahati High Court dismissing the revision petition filed 
E by the appellant. 
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
4. The appellant was found guilty of offences punishable under Section' 
7 read with Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 
F (in short the 'Act') by the trial Court. First Appellate Court dismissed the 
t 
appeal. The revision, as noted above, was dismissed by the High Court. 
5. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
On 20.5.1987 the Food Inspector collected sample of chilli powder from 
G the shop of the appellant. The sample was sent for analysis to the prescribed 
laboratory and on such analysis it was found to be adulterated. The appellant 
was tried. On conclusion of the trial, the trial Court convicted the appellant 
for offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16(1) of the Act 
and sentenced him to imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of 
Rs.1,000/-. 
H 
SA TY A NARAYAN AGARWAL v. STATE OF ASSAM [PASA Y AT, J.) 
671 
'I 
6. An appeal Wl!S preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, A 
~'which was dismissed. As noted above, the revision before the learned Single 
Judge was also dismissed. 
7. Learned counsel for the appellant re-iterated the submissions made 
before the courts below and submitted that it is a case of misbranding and,. 
therefore, it is not a case where minimum sentence is to be imposed. The High B 
Court did not accept the contention. It was of the view that it is not a case 
of misbranding. Additionally, it was submitted that the High Court should 
have directed release of the appellant on probation, or instead of custodial 
sentence, sentence of fine could have been imposed. 
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported c 
the judgment. It is to be no

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