Prasad & Anr Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh  INSC 354 (22 July 1998)
Nanavati, S.P. Kurdukar Nanavati, J.
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.
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.
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
found no substance in this appeal, it is dismissed. The appellant is directed
to surrender to custody to serve out the remaining sentence.