AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This criminal revision is filed against the Judgment in Crl.A. No. 142/90 dt. 3-12-90 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Guntur.
This is a case of adulteration wherein the accused was convicted and punished for an offence u/s 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(i) and (2) (ia) and (m) of the P.F.A. Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court in Abdul Gafoor v. State of A.P., 1986 (2) ALT 405 and contended that mixing a little of castor oil with groundnut oil does not amount to adulteration u/s 16(a)(i) but attracts Second proviso to Section 16. In that case the learned Judge held as follows:-
"It is a matter of common knowledge that castor oil in limited doses is consumed though not as a drug. It can, therefore, safely be concluded that the second proviso to Section 16 is attracted to the facts of this case inasmuch as mixing a little quantity of castor oil with groundnut oil does not amount to adulteration within the meaning of Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act but such an adulteration comes only within the meaning of Section 16(1)(a)(ii) and is in respect of Rule 44(e)."
In the case of adulteration that is proved, the Court is bound to convict the accused for a minimum period of three months or six months depending upon the nature of the case. But if the above decision is applied, the possibility of convicting the accused under the main Section is completely ruled out and the benefit of Second Proviso to Section 16 has to be given. If that is so, the very intention of the Legislature in making the provisions stringent is lost. Hence, this Court feels that the matter has to be decided by a Bench.
Hence, the papers may be placed before My Lord the Chief Justice for orders regarding posting the matter before a Bench.
This Crl.R.C. coming on for final hearing before the Hon''ble Sri Justice Sivaraman Nair and the Hon''ble Sri Justice Jagannadha Raju, finally on 28-1-1992, pursuant to the Order of reference of the Hon''ble Sri Justice Radha Krishna Rao, dt. 24-9-91, upon perusing the said order dt. 24-9-92 the Petition in Crl.R.C, the order of tine Lower Court and the material papers connected thereto and upon hearing the arguments of the Counsel, appearing on behalf of the parties concerned.