1975 (3) TMI 134

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tous causes. The facts A petty milk vendor was prosecuted for alleged adulteration, proof of which rested on a minimal shortfall in the percentage of 'milk solids not fat' going by the prescribed standard (Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules). The plea of the accused that, if at all, there might have been a marginal error, while the analysis was conducted was rightly rejected and the Magistrate sentenced him to imprisonment and fine as laid down in s-7 and s.16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act). The milk vendor hopefully appealed and impressed by the fact that the milk solids were of the required standard and the 'milk solids not fat' were slightly sub-standard, the Se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 964, decided on 14-8-1967.). Obviously, the Sessions Judge had concluded that a minor error in the chemical analysis might have occurred: He was perhaps not right in saying so. Anyway, a reading of his judgment-shows that the mention of this Court's unreported ruling (supra) was meant to fortify himself and not to apply the ratio of that case. Indeed, this Court's decision cited above discloses that Hidayatullah, J. (as he then was) was not laying down the law that minimal deficiencies in the milk components justified acquittal in food adulteration cases. The point that arose in that case was whether the High Court was justified in upsetting an acquittal in revision, when the jurisdiction was invoked by a rival trader, the alleged a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ourt would be attracted by Art. 141. Statements on matters other than law have no binding force. Several decisions of the Supreme Court are on facts and that Court itself has pointed out in Gurcharan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab (1972 FAC 549) and Prakash Chandra Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1960 SC 195) that as on facts no two cases could be similar, its own decisions which were essentially on questions of fact could not be relied upon as precedents for decision of other cases." * * * * * * "The standard fixed under the Act is one that is certain. If it is varied to any extent, the certainty of a general standard would be replaced by the vagaries of a fluctuating standard. The disadvantages of the resulting unpre .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X