Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Kantilal Valaji Mali, was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, for contravention of Section 7(i) read with Section 2(ia)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, punishable under Section 16 of the said Act. The prosecution was launched by the original Respondent No. 1, Mansingrao Nivrutti Torse, Joint Commissioner (Pune Division) Food and Drug Administration, who filed a complaint on 17th October 1996 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune. The allegation was that the applicant sold milk which was found to be adulterated as it was deficient in milk fat and solids-not-fat. The trial court sentenced the applicant to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000, with a default sentence of one month. The applicant appealed to the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence. The applicant then filed a Criminal Revision Application before the High Court of Bombay. During the pendency of the revision, the original Respondent No. 1 died and was substituted by the Joint Commissioner (Pune Division) Food and Drug Administration. The High Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and held that the revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The court found that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence, including the report of the Public Analyst, and there was no error of law or fact. The revision application was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Adulteration of Milk - Section 7(i) r/w Section 2(ia)(a) and (m) and Section 16 - Conviction - The applicant was convicted for selling milk which was found to be deficient in milk fat and solids-not-fat, constituting adulteration under the Act. The trial court and appellate court concurrently found the sample to be adulterated based on the report of the Public Analyst. The High Court in revision held that the concurrent findings of fact cannot be re-examined unless there is a perversity or error of law. The revision was dismissed. (Paras 1-5)
B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Revision - Section 397 - Scope - The revisional court's jurisdiction is limited to examining the legality, regularity, and propriety of the proceedings. It cannot act as a second appellate court and reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The High Court found no such infirmity in the concurrent findings. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicant under Section 7(i) read with Section 2(ia)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, punishable under Section 16 of the said Act, is sustainable in law and whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The Criminal Revision Application was dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune and confirmed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune were upheld.
Law Points
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Section 7(i) read with Section 2(ia)(a) and (m)
- Section 16
- Revision jurisdiction limited to legality and regularity
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with in revision
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (10) 104
Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 2002
Mr. Kirti M. Parekh for the Applicant, Mr. S. S. Hulke, APP for the Respondent/State
Mansingrao Nivrutti Torse (since deceased, substituted by Joint Commissioner (Pune Division) Food and Drug Administration) and State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application challenging conviction for adulteration of milk under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought to set aside the judgment and order of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, which confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune.
Filing Reason
The applicant was convicted for selling adulterated milk deficient in milk fat and solids-not-fat, and he challenged the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Previous Decisions
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune convicted the applicant on 17th October 1997 in RCC No. 94 of 1996, sentencing him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. The 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune dismissed the appeal on 26th March 2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 181 of 1997, confirming the conviction and sentence.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 7(i) read with Section 2(ia)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is sustainable.
Whether the revisional court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the absence of perversity or error of law.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that the conviction was not sustainable in law.
The respondent/State supported the concurrent findings and argued that the revision should be dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
The revisional court's jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is limited to examining the legality, regularity, and propriety of the proceedings. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be reappreciated or interfered with unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. In this case, the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence, including the Public Analyst's report, and there was no error of law or fact warranting interference.
Judgment Excerpts
By way of this Criminal Revision Application the applicant is challenging the judgment and order dated 26th March, 2002 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Appeal No. 181 of 1997, whereby the judgment and order dated 17th October, 1997 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune in RCC No. 94 of 1996 was confirmed and the Appeal was dismissed.
The applicant was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune for contravention of Section 7(i) r/w Section 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(m) punishable under Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Procedural History
The prosecution was launched by the original Respondent No. 1 on 17th October 1996 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune. The trial court convicted the applicant on 17th October 1997. The applicant appealed to the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, who dismissed the appeal on 26th March 2002. The applicant then filed the present Criminal Revision Application before the High Court of Bombay on 24th October 2018. During the pendency, the original Respondent No. 1 died and was substituted by the Joint Commissioner (Pune Division) Food and Drug Administration on 24th June 2004.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Section 7(i), Section 2(ia)(a), Section 2(ia)(m), Section 16
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 397
