STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus KARTAR SINGH

Citation: [1964] 6 S.C.R. 679 · Decided: 06-02-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

6 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
v. 
KARTAR SINGH 
(P.B. GAJBNDRAGADKAR, C.1., 
A. 
K. 
WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA 
AND 
AYYANGAR, JJ ) 
SARKAR, K . . N. 
N. RAJAGOPALA 
Constitution of India-Prevention of Fsod Adulteration-Fization of 
Reichert value of ghee for different State• of India-If un7'tuoMbk 
or discriminatory-Constitution of India, Art. 14-Prevention of 
Food Adulterations Act, 1954, ss. 1, 16(l)(a) (i), 23-Prevtntion 
of Food Adulteration. Rules, 1955, r. 5, Appendix B A·ll, iltm 14. 
The respondent was tried for the commission of an offence under 
s. 7 read with s. 16(1 )(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration 
Act, 1954 for selling adulterated ghee. 
The analysis of the ghce bad 
disclosed that it bad a Reichert Value of only 22·5 whereas tho minimum 
Reichert value fixed for Uttar Pradesh, where the respondent sold tho 
ghoe, was 28. The defence of the respondent was that he bad obtained 
the ghee which ho sold from Jodhpur where the Reichert value fixed 
was only 22 and that the sample must be held not to be adulterated 
on the basis of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in State v. 
Malik Ram, A.I.R. 1962 All. 156. 
This decision laid down that a 
distinction should be made between gbee obtained from cattle in the 
hill districts and gbee obtained from cattle in the plains and that ghce 
obtained from the hill districts of U.P. cannot be held to be adulterated 
if its Reiehert value was equal to that prescribed for Himachal Pradesh 
which is a hilly area. 
It was the contention of the respondent that bis 
ghee was admittedly pahadi ghee and therefore this decision would apply. 
The First Class Magistrate rejected these contentions and convicted 
him and sentenced him to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500. On 
appeal the Sessions Judge concurred in the findings of the trial court 
but reduced the sentence. The respondent thereupon filed a Criminal 
Revision Petition before the High Court. The High Court agreed with 
the courts below that the ghee was not Jodhpur ghee but it was produced 
locally. But it held that the Reichert values as fixed were not based 
on any reasonable classification and therefore it was sufficient if a vendor 
satisfied the minimum standard prescribed for any area in tho country 
and since the minimum prescribed for certain areas is 21 and since the 
ghee in question had 22 · 2 the respondent was not guilty of the olfence 
charged. The State thereupon appealed to this Court by way of a 
certificate under Art. 134(l)(e) of the Constitution. 
It was uried by the appellant that tho High Court was wrong in 
striking down or re-drafting the mies framed by the Central Government 
in the manner in which the High Court has done purportina to invoke 
I964 
Ftbruary 6, 
1964 
State of Uttar 
Pradesh 
v. 
~artar Singh 
68o 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[rg64] 
Art. 14 of the Constitution and virtually setting up what the High Court 
considered was the reasonable standard. 
Held: (i) Where the Government have prescribed certain standatds 
after taking into considerations various factors the court cannot strike 
down these standards as unreasonable or discriminatory merely on some 
apriori reasoning. 
It can do so only by basing its decision on materials 
placed before it by way of scientific analysis. The party invoking Art. 14 
must make 
averments with details 
to sustain such l plea and lead 
evidence to establish his allegations. 
In the absence of such plea and 
evidence the court cannot accept the statement of a party as to the 
unconstitutionality of a rule and refuse to enforce that rule as it stands 
merely because in its view the standards are too high and for this reason 
the rule is unreasonable. 
(ii) Applyin2' these principles it is found that the case State v. 
Malik Ram (A.l.R. 1962 All. 156) was wrongly Jeci<lcd by the Allahabad 
High Court. In the case under appeal the High Court took the matter 
a step further and adopted the lowest Reichert value prescribed for any 
area in the country as what should be adopted for every other area in 
the country disregarding the rules. 
Hence the High Court was wrong in 
allowing the revisions. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 164 of 1962. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 2, 1962, 
of the Allahabad 
High Court in Criminal Revision No. 
1579 of 1961. 
0. P. Rana and C. P. Lal, for the appellant. 
Harnam Singh Chadda and Harbans Singh, for the res-
pondent. 
February 6,

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