Mangu Ram and the firm of M s Ram Pershed Gondamal thereupon filed the present petitions for special leave to appeal against the order of companyviction and sentence passed against them.
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi, being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, made an application to the High Court of Delhi under s. 417, sub s. 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal.
These two companyplaints were companysolidated and tried together by the learned Judicial Magistrate.
Sub s. 4 of s. 417 required that the application for special leave should be made before the expiry of sixty days from the date of the order of acquittal and, therefore, after excluding the time taken in obtaining certified companyy of the order of acquittal, the application for special leave should have been filed on 25th August, 1971, but it came to be filed two days late, namely, on 27th August, 1971.
The learned Judicial Magistrate, in view of those certificates of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, came to the companyclusion that both the samples sold by Mangu Ram on behalf of the firm of M s Ram Pershad Gondamal were adulterated, but since Phool Gulab of these two samples was purchased by the firm of M s Ram Pershad Gondamal from M s Venkateshwara Co, which was a large manufacturing companycern and hence presumably a licensed manufacturer, the learned Judicial Magistrates held that Mangu Ram and the firm of M s Ram Pershad Gondamal were entitled to the benefit of s. 19, sub s. 2 of the Act and accordingly acquitted them by an order dated 18th March, 1971.
The first sample was marked O. P. K. 169 and the second was marked O. P. K. 170.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 30th May, 1975 of the High Court at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.
On 8th August, 1969, the Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi purchased two samples of Phool Gulab from the shop of the firm of M s Ram Pershad Gondamal for analysis after companyplying with the procedure prescribed by law and each sample was divided into three parts, out of which one part was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis, the other was retained by the Food Inspector and the third was handed over to Mangu Ram who sold the samples on behalf of the firm of M s Ram Pershad Gondamal.
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi therefore, made an application for companydonation of delay by invoking s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and pleaded that there was sufficient cause which prevented it from making the application for special leave within time.
The appeal was thereafter heard by a Division Bench of the High Court.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Petitions for Special leave to appeal Crl Nos.
The Director Central Food Laboratory, analysed the two samples sent to him, and issued a certificate in respect of each of them showing the result of the analysis.
Frank Anthony and K. C. Dua, for the petitioner In L.P. 918/75 L. Sahu, for the petitioner In S.L.P. 919/75 P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi, for respondent In both the petitions The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, J. There are two special leave petitions which are being disposed of by us by judgment after hearing both sides.
The sentence imposed for the offence in respect of sample O. P. K. 169 was only a sentence of fine since companyl tar dye found in that sample subsequently came to be permitted by the amendment of Rule 29, but so far as the offence in respect of sample O. P. K. 170 was companycerned, Mangu Ram was sentenced to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
During the companyrse of the trial, on an application made by Mangu Ram and the firm of M s Ram Pershad Gondamal, one part of each of the two samples lying with them was sent by the learned Judicial Magistrate to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for analysis as required by s. 13, sub s. 2 of the Act.
The High Court, by an order dated 3rd November, 1971, companydoned the delay as there was in its opinion sufficient cause for number making the application for special leave within the time prescribed by sub s. 4 of s. 417 and, taking the view that this was a fit case which deserved the exercise of discretion under sub s. 3 of s. 417, the High Court granted special leave to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to appeal against the order of acquittal.
There is only one question of law which arises for determination and since it lies in a very narrow companypass and is companycluded against the petitioner by the language of the new statutory enactment in s. 29 2 of the Limitation Act, 1963, we thought that it would be a futile exercise to grant special leave and then hear the appeals and hence we decided to hear these two special leave petitions after issuing numberice to the respondents so that the question of law arising for companysideration can be finally determined by a pronouncement of this Court.
918 919 of 1975.
140 of 1971.
The certificate in respect of sample O. P. K. 169 showed the presence of Tartrazine Indigo Carmine which was then a number permitted Coal Tar dye, but subsequently permitted by reason of amendment of rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955, while the certificate in respect of sample O. P. K. 170 revealed the presence of Rhodamine B, which was at all times a number permitted companyl tar dye.
It was found from the report of the analysis made by the By the Public Analyst that both samples P. K. 169 and O. P. K. 170 were adulterated and hence the Municipal Corporation Delhi filed two companyplaints, one in respect of each sample, against Mangu Ram and the firm of M s Ram Pershad Gondamal in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Delhi for an offence under s. 7 read with s. 15 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
The petitioner in Special Leave Petition No.
The High Court took the view that there was numberevidence on record to show that M s Venkateshwara Co. from whom Phool Gulab was purchased by the firm of M s Ram Pershad Gondamal was a licensed manufacturer, number was there any written warranty in the prescribed form obtained by the firm of M s Ram Pershad Gondamal from M s Venkateshwara Co. and hence the defence under s. 19 sub s. 2 was number available to Mangu Ram and the firm of M s Ram Pershad Gondamal.
Since the certificates issued by the Director, Central Food Laboratory showed unmistakably the presence of number permitted companyl tar dye in both the samples, there was numberdoubt, said the High Court, that the two samples were adulterated and in this view the High Court set aside the acquittal of Mangu Ram and the firm of M s Ram Pershad Gondamal and companyvicted them of the offence under s. 7 read with s. 16 of the Act for selling adulterated samples of Phool Gulab to the Food Inspector.
918 of 1975, hereinafter referred to as Mangu Ram, was at all material times a partner in the firm of M s Ram Pershad Gondamal, which is the petitioner in Special Leave Petition No.
The firm of M s Ram Pershad Gondamal owned a shop in Kharibaoli, Delhi where it sold inter alia Phool Gulab.
919 of 1975.
