http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SHARIF AHMED

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/08/1979

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. SHINGAL, P.N.

CITATION:  1979 AIR 1917            1980 SCR  (2) 312  1979 SCC  (4) 412

ACT:      Policy of  Prohibition under  the  Prevention  of  Food Adulteration Act-Non  mention in  the Analyst’s report to be injurious to  human life does not amount that the adulterant is non-injurious-Setting  aside the sentence already reduced by  High   Court  under  a  misconception  would  amount  to following a wrong path.

HEADNOTE:      HELD: The  prohibition under  the  Prevention  of  Food Adulteration Act  and the  Rules has been imposed because it is harmful to human health. [312 G]      Absence  of  evidence  is  not  equal  to  evidence  of absence. Non-mention in the Public Analyst’s report that the "colour  which   was  mixed   with  powdered  Chillies"  was injurious to  human life  does not  amount to the adulterant being  non-injurious.   When  the   High  Court  under  this misconception has  already reduced  the sentence, this Court cannot under  Art. 136  of the  Constitution be  pressurised further to follow the wrong path. [312 F-H]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2088 of 1979.      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  25-7-1979  of  the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1189/79.      N. Ali Khan and A. D. Mathur for the Petitioner      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KRISHNA IYER, J.-Counsel for the petitioner states that the sentence  imposed upon  his client for the offence under section 7  read with  section 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  an 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

evidence is  not equal  to evidence of absence. For ought we know, the  prohibition under  the Act 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. V.D.K.                                   Petition dismissed. 313