SHARIF AHMED versus STATE OF U.P. on 22 August 1979

C

F

SHARIF AlIMED

v.

STATE OF U.P. August 22, 1979

[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.]

Policy of Prohibition ufzder the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act-Non mention in the Af!alyst's report to be injurious to human life does not an1ount that the- adulterant is non-injurioztS-=-Setting aside the sentence already reduced by High Court under a misconception would amount to following a wrong vath.

HEW : The prohibition under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules has been imposed because it is harmful to human health. [312 O]

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 re· duced the sentence, this Court cannot under Art. 136 of the Constitution be pressurised f?rther to follow the wrong path. [312 F-H]

CRIM1i:;AL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Cr!.) No. 2088 of 19i9.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25-7-1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1'189/79.

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 sen-tence 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 imprison-ment part of the sentence, it was urged, should be eliminated. It ls 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 evidence is not equal to evidence of absence. For ought we know, the prohibition under the Act and the Rules has been im-posed because it is harmful to human health. It is true that the High Court has, under a mis-conception, reduced the sentence, but we can-not be pressurised further into following the wrong path. The special leave petition is dismissed.

V.D.K.

Petition dismiSsed.