Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SHARIF AHMED versus STATE OF U.P.

Decided
22 August 1979
Judges listed
V.R. KRISHNA IYER (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1980] 1 S.C.R. 312 · 1979 INSC 154
Also cited as
  • (1982) 2 SCC 376 (13 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1982 SC 937 (7 citing judgments)
  • (1982) SCC(L&S) 253 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

, KRISHNA IYER, J.-Counsel for the petitioner states that the sentence 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 imprisonment 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 imposed because it is harmful to human health. It is true that the High Court has, under a mis-conception, reduced the sentence, but we cannot be pressurised further into following the wrong path. The special leave petition is dismissed. V.D.K. Petition dismiSsed.

p. 312, margin C