http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: JAGDISH PRASAD AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/07/1998

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, S.P. KURDUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Nanavati, J.      The  appellant  is  challenging  his  conviction  under Section 7  read with  Section 16  of the  Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,  1955. Both  the courts  have concurrently found that  it was the appellant who had sold curd which was found to  be adulterated.  The  certificate  issued  by  the Public  Analyst   and  subsequently   by  the  Central  Food Laboratory show  that the  curd was  deficient in respect of milk fat  and milk  solids of  non fat.  We see no reason to differ from  the findings  recorded by both the courts below and, therefore,  the conviction  of the  appellant has to be confirmed.      It  was  submitted  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the appellant that Rules 4(3) and 4(4) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules were not complied with in this case. This contention has  been dealt with by the High Court and it has found that  they were complied with. Learned counsel was not able to  point out  how Rule 4(3) or Rule 4(4) have not been complied with  in this  case. His  submission that it is not mentioned in the certificate  that the sample was intact and therefore there  was non-compliance  does  not  deserve  any consideration because  there is  no requirement  that in the Certificate of  Analysis itself it should be stated that the sample when  received by  the Central  Food  Laboratory  was found intact.      It was  also submitted  by the learned counsel that the offence had  taken place in 1979 and the appellant’s father, who was  the owner  of the shop has now died and, therefore, some leniency  should be shown to him. We cannot accept this submission because  once the  offence is  held  proved,  the minimum sentence has to be imposed.      As  we  found  no  substance  in  this  appeal,  it  is dismissed. The appellant is directed to surrender to custody to serve out the remaining sentence.