9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Enhancement of sentence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. Validity of conviction based on admission of guilt after prosecution evidence. 3. Discrepancy in enforcement of food adulteration laws against small traders versus wholesalers and manufacturers. Analysis: Issue 1: Enhancement of sentence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 The appellant was initially convicted by the Judicial Magistrate for selling adulterated turmeric powder under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. However, the High Court, in a suo motu exercise of revisional jurisdiction, enhanced the sentence due to the lenient punishment imposed by the Magistrate. The High Court increased the sentence to three months' simple imprisonment and raised the fine from Rs. 300 to Rs. 500. The appellant appealed this decision, challenging the enhanced sentence. Issue 2: Validity of conviction based on admission of guilt after prosecution evidence The appellant contended that his conviction was influenced by his admission of guilt, which was made after the prosecution evidence was closed and he had been examined under Section 313 of the CrPC. The appellant argued that the Magistrate's evaluation of evidence was affected by the belated admission of guilt, leading to a superficial assessment. The Supreme Court agreed with this argument, stating that the Magistrate's approach was colored by the admission of guilt, thereby vitiating the conviction. The Court emphasized that the evaluation of evidence should be independent of any admission of guilt by the accused. Issue 3: Discrepancy in enforcement of food adulteration laws against small traders versus wholesalers and manufacturers The Supreme Court expressed concern over the disproportionate enforcement of food adulteration laws against small traders compared to wholesalers and manufacturers. The Court noted that small traders, often not directly responsible for adulteration, bear the brunt of legal action while the actual culprits escape scrutiny. The Court criticized the Food Inspection Department for targeting small retailers instead of investigating upstream suppliers. The Court highlighted the systemic weakness in enforcing laws, leading to a perception of selective justice against small traders. The Court urged authorities to focus investigative efforts on wholesalers and manufacturers to address the root cause of food adulteration and ensure fair enforcement of the law. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order of enhanced sentence and the Magistrate's conviction. The case was remanded to the Magistrate for further proceedings, emphasizing the need for an unbiased evaluation of evidence independent of any admission of guilt. Additionally, the Court highlighted the importance of equitable enforcement of food adulteration laws to target the real culprits behind adulteration activities.
|
