SHARIF AHMED Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner states that the sentence imposed upon his client for the offence under S. 7 read with S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act must be reduced because the adulterant, namely, prohibited coal-tar dye, is, in his submission, non-injurious or innocent mix, Therefore, the imprisonment part of the sentence, it was urged, should be eliminated. It is true that the High Court has observed that the "colour which was mixed with powdered chillies" is not mentioned in the Public Analyst's report to be injurious to human life. It does not follow that because it is not specifically mentioned to be injurious, it is non-injurious. Absence of evidence is not equal to evidence of absence. For aught we know, the prohibition under the and the Rules has been imposed because it is harmful to human health. It is true that the High Court has, under a mis-conception, reduced the sentence, but we cannot be pressurised further into following the wrong path. The special leave petition is dismissed.