Sharif Ahmed v. State of U.P.
Cited by 4 judgments in this corpus
- Prabhakar Singh @ Dimpu vs State Of U.P. And Another · 2026:AHC:105338
- In Re- Procedure To Be Followed In Hearing Of Criminal Appeals vs State of U.P. · 2025:AHC-LKO:3665
- Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh · 2025 INSC 19
- Jagmohan And Another vs State Of H.P. And Another · 2024:HHC:7874
These judgments mention this one. Whether each followed, distinguished or doubted it is not recorded here — read them before relying on any of it.
, 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.