THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus KHUSHI RAM

Citation: [1960] 3 S.C.R. 427 · Decided: 01-04-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
,< 
... 
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
427 
tribunal. It has dealt with the history relating to 
this tiffin allowance and exhaustively considered all 
the points raised on behalf of the.workmen. Nothing 
has been brought to our notice which would induce 
us to interfere with the considered order of the tribu-
nal in this behalf. 
All the points that Srl Chatterjee 
has raised on behalf of the workmen have been dealt 
with by the tribunal and the conclusion it has reached is 
that having regard to the circumstances, the workmen 
were not eligible to the tiffin allowance of annas eight 
per head per working day. All that we need say is that 
the correspondence between the workmen and the 
company shows that though the workmen were keen 
on the provision of a canteen before the tiffin allowance 
was granted by the award dated July 24, 1953, their 
keenness disappeared after the award. The company 
seems to have taken steps even before the award to 
start a canteen and pursued the matter vigorously 
after the award; but the workmen started objecting 
to the arrangements made and some of the objections 
were fantastic. It seems that having been given the 
tiffin allowance they preferred to have it rather than 
go to the canteen. In the circumstances we are of opi-
nion that the conclusion·of the tribunal is correct and 
there is no reason for interference. 
The appeals are hereby dismissed, but in the cir-
cumstances we pass no ord_er as to costs. · 
Appeals dismissed. 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
• 
v. 
KHUSHI RAM 
( JAFER IMAM and A. K. SARKAR, JJ.) 
Criminal Trial-Magistrate empowered to impose sentence pro-
vided-Commitment under impression of not being so empowered-
Trial by Court of Session on such commitment-Validity-Prevention 
of Food Adulteration Act, I954 (37 of r954), ss. 7, I6 and 2I.-Code 
of Criminal Procedure, r898 (V of r898), ss. 32, 207 and 347. 
The respondent was prosecuted for offences under s. 7 of the 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Magistrate found 
the offences proved and he further found that the respondeut had 
• 
Burn 0- Co. Ltd. 
v. 
Their Employees 
Wanchoo ]. 
April I. 
State of Uttar 
Pradesh 
v. 
/( hushi Rani 
Sarkar]. 
428 
SUPREME COUltT REPORTS 
[1960] 
committed the offence for the third time for which he was liable 
to be awarded a sentence of imprisonment for not less than two 
years and to a fine of not less than Rs. 3,000. Section zr of the 
Act specifically empowered the Magistrate to impose this sentence, 
but as he was under the impression that s. 32 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure limited his power to impose sentences he 
committed the respondent to stand his trial before the Court of 
Session. 
The· Court of Session found the respondent guilty and 
convicted him. On appeal the High Court held that the Magis-
trate had no power to commit and that the Sessions Judge had no 
jurisdiction to try the case, set aside the conviction and sentence 
and remanded the case for re-trial to the Magistrate : 
Held, that the commitment was not illegal and that the 
Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to try the case. Section zr of the 
Act vvas not a disabling provision and it did not make commit-
ment by a Magistrate competent to award the full sentence pre-
scribed by the Act, a nullity; it did not take away the power of 
the Magistrate to commit. The Magistrate had both the power 
and the territorial jurisdiction to commit, and the comn1itment 
was good. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 160 of 1959. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order 
dated October 30, 1958, of the Allahabad High Court 
(Lucknow Bench) at Lucknow in Criminal Appeal 
No. 105of1957, arising out of the judgment and order 
dated February 12, 1957, of the Second Temporary 
Civil and Sessions Judge at Barabanki in Criminal 
Sessions Trial No. 102 of 1956. 
G. 0. Mathur and 0. P. Lal, for the appellant. 
The respondent did not appear. 
1960. April 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
SARKAR, J.-The respondent was prosecuted before 
the Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki, for offences under 
els. (i) and (iii) of s. 7 of the Prevention of Food 
Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling adulterated milk 
and for selling milk without a licence. 
The learned 
Magistrate found that the offences had been proved 
and further that, the respondent had committed the 
offences for the third time. 
Under cl. (a) (iii) of sub-
sec. (i) of s. 16 of the Act, in the absence of spec

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