LAWS(ALL)-1997-12-30

JAGDISH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On December 12, 1997
JAGDISH SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition and connected writ petitions involve common questions of facts and law and hence they are being disposed of by a common judg ment.

(2.) HEARD Sri Sudhir Chandra, learned Senior Advocate and Sri V. K. Shukla for the petitioners and learned Government Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been filed and I have perused the same. Sri Sudhir Chandra, learned Senior Advocate alleged that the petitioner was not selling milk at all, and it was only selling milk powder, ghee etc. He relied on the decision or the Supreme Court in Om Prakash v. Delhi Administration and another, 1976 SCC (Crl) 128, where it was held in paragraph 7 that the act of storing an adulterated article of food would be an offence only if storing is for sale. He also relied on Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Laxmi Narain Tandon and others, 1976 SCC (Crl.) 76, where it was held that the word "store" does not means storage simpliciter but storing for sale. He also relied on M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, JT 1997 (8) SC 705. where it was held that the Magistrate is expected to carefully scrutinise the evidence on record to see if prima facie an offence is committed before issuing process.