SHARIF ALIMED v. STATE OF U.P.
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court
- Hon'ble Judges
- V. R. Krishna Iyer
- P. N. Shinghal
- Judgment Date
- 1979-08-22
- Court Decision / Holding
- The Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2088 of 1979 is dismissed.
- Final Disposition
- Petition dismissed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Sharif Alimed
Respondents
- State of U.P.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • N. Ali Khan
- • A. D. Mathur
Case Synopsis & Summary
Sharif Alimed v. State of Uttar Pradesh deals with a challenge to the sentence imposed under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, following adulteration involving a prohibited coal-tar dye mixed with powdered chillies. The Allahabad High Court had apparently reduced the imprisonment portion of the sentence, on the ground that the adulterant’s nature was non-injurious or innocuous in the mix, based on the Public Analyst’s report not explicitly stating injuriousness. The petitioner contends that such absence does not prove non-injury, emphasizing that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and that the Act and its Rules impose prohibitions to safeguard health regardless of the report’s wording. The Supreme Court cautions against pressurising the judiciary to adopt a wrong path and notes that Article 136 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to compel a departure from the statutory purpose. It reaffirms that the prohibition under the Act is aimed at protecting human health and rejects the High Court’s misconceived path. Ultimately, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed, leaving the original constitutional and statutory framework in place and maintaining the punitive measures under the Act.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Absence of evidence is not equal to evidence of absence.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner submits that the sentence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act should be reduced because the adulterant involved (prohibited coal-tar dye) is, in his submission, non-injurious or innocuous in the mix. He argues that the High Court’s reliance on the Public Analyst’s report, which does not explicitly declare injuriousness, is misplaced; absence of explicit injuriousness does not prove non-injury, and the prohibition under the Act is justified on health grounds. The petitioner emphasizes that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and that the High Court misinterpreted the evidence leading to a reduced sentence. He contends that Article 136 cannot be used to override the statutory frame or to pressurize the Court into a wrong path.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents defend the High Court’s approach by asserting the Act’s purpose to protect public health through prohibition of adulterants. They argue that absence of explicit injuriousness in the Public Analyst’s report does not negate potential harm and that the Act, its Rules, and the overall aim of safeguarding health justify the prohibitions and the sentence imposed. They oppose any reduction of the sentence and maintain that the order of the High Court aligns with statutory objectives and constitutional provisions. They rely on the health-protective thrust of the Act and the necessity to deter adulteration.
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against SHARIF ALIMED v. STATE OF U.P. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.