REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

SHEO CHARAN Appellant

V/S

STATE OF U P Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MALWA CO -OPERATIVE MILK UNION LTD.,INDORE V. BIHARI LAL [REFERRED TO : 1979 FAJ 344 (SC) 28,30,36]
KADAM SINGH AND PURAN SINGH V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO (ALL) (HELD NOT GOOD LAW IN VIEW OF AIR 1961 ALL 590 (FB)) 14,19,20,26]
RAM VISHAL V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO : (1996) 2 FAC 151 (HELD NOT GOOD LAW IN VIEW OF AIR 1961 ALL 590 (FB)) 27]
NAGAR SWASTHYA ADHIKARI V. SUBHASH CHANDRA [REFERRED TO : 1982 FAJ 168 (ALL) 15]
DARSHAN SINGH V. STATE [REFERRED TO : (1981) 1 FAC 98 17]
ANDHRA PRADESH GRAIN AND SEED MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO : 1971 CRI LJ 1556 35]
BABU LAL HARGOVINDAS VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO : 1972 FAC 18 : 1971 CRI LJ 1075 25]
JAGDISH PRASAD ALIAS JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO : 1972 CRI LJ 1309 36]
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AMRITSAR VS. HAZARA SINGH [REFERRED TO : (1975) 1 FAC 271 : 1975 CRI LJ 928 27,37]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. K RAJESHWARRAO [REFERRED TO : (1992) 1 SCC 365 : 1992 CRI LJ 300 : 1992 AIR SCW 2971 41 BHOOP SINGH V. NAGAR SWATHYA]
PRABHU VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO : 1994 SCC (CRI) 895 32]
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF NAGPUR VS. LAXMAN [REFERRED TO]
BADRIPRASAD VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
N SUKUMARAN NAIR VS. FOOD INSPECTOR MAVELIKARA [REFERRED TO : (1997) 9 SCC 101 : 1995 CRI LJ 3651 44]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. RAM [REFERRED TO (DELHI) 25]
PREM DAS VS. STATE [REFERRED TO : 1961 (2) CRI LJ 737 (FB) (FOLL.) 23,25,26,33,35]
SULTAN SHAH VS. STATE [REFERRED TO : 1973 FAC 342 (ALL) 13,14]
RAJANLAL VS. STATE [REFERRED TO :1976 FAJ 422 (ALL) 11]
VIDYA NAND VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO (ALL) 12]
BABU LAL VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
NANHEY VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO (ALL) 22]
NAGAR SWASTHYA ADHIKARI NAGAR MAHAPALIKA KANPUR VS. GURU PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH CHANDRA VS. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO : 1953 CRI LJ 1648 36]
NETAI CHANDRA AND SURENDRA NATH DEY VS. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO : 1967 CRI LJ 172 36]
UJAGAR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. TEJA SINGH [REFERRED TO : (1976) 2 FAC 44 (PUNJ AND HRY)(FB) 34]
MAHARAJ MAL HANS RAJ VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: R PADMANABHA CHETTY, PERUMAL AND COMPANY VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
M.C.D. VS. JAWAHAR LAL [REFERRED TO]
DHANI RAM VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
DEVI DATT VS. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
DEOKINANDAN VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
RAM AUTAR VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
HALKE VS. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL BOARD, ETAWAH VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
DHUNNOO VS. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL LATIF VS. THE STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. SARAJUDDIN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 29 -3 -1984 passed by the Sessions Judge, Meerut dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 18 -1 -1984 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1 Meerut convicting the revisionist under Sections 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo 6 months R.I. and Rs. 1000/ - fine.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the sample taken on analysis was found to contain 5,5% milk fat against the prescribed standard of 3.5% and 7.4 % in fatty solids against the prescribed standard of 8.5%. He contended that if non - fatty and fatty solids are added it is more than the prescribed standard of 12% and, therefore, the sample could not be treated as adulterated. He also contended that since the alleged adulteration was made about 22 years before on 31st May, 1978 it would not be proper to send the accused to jail after such a long time; more so when the revisionist had served out at least few days of the sentence awarded.

(3.) THE word "adulterated" is defined in Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in Section 2 (I -a). An article of food shall be deemed to be 'adulterated' if it is one of the categories mentioned in clauses (a) to (m). Under clause (m) an article is adulterated if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability but which does not render it injurious to health Provided that, where the quality or purity of the article, being primary food, has fallen below the prescribed standards or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability, in either case, solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency, then, such article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this sub -clause.

Click here to view full judgment.

SHEO CHARAN Vs. STATE OF U P

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address