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

ALADANKANDU PUTHIYAPURAYIL ABDULLA versus FOOD INSPECTOR, CANNANORE & ANR.

Decided
16 July 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. 4 · 1979 INSC 118

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

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.-The Petitioner has pressed before us certain points of law which have not been urged before the High Court and

p. 4, margin D

we are unable to examine the tenability of those points. For this reason, petition must be dismissOO.

p. 4, margin D

Counsel drew our attention to the fact! that although the episode, which is the subject matter of the prosecution under section 16 (lA) (i) read with section 7(i) and section 2(1A) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, took place allegedly in 1972. There was inexplicable, inordinate delay in trial. The case was tried in 1977 whicn, according to counsel, prejndiccd the petitioner considerably. We are aghast 11t the traumatic impact on criminal justice inflicted by delayed trials when human memory becomes faded and vivid testimony is withheld. The present case is an instance in point. We feel strongly that the trial courts in the country should ensnre that, in the spirit· of Article 21 of the Constitution, food adulteration cases, 'Which involve imprisonment, are tried expeditiously so Uiat neither the prosecution nor the accused is prejudiced by unusual procrastination. We express the hope that the High Court concerned will issue peremptory directions to trial Judges demanding expeditious disposal of such cases. In the present case, prosecution evidence, as regards taking of samples, is perhaps not as good as it would have been had the trial been prompt. We do not want forensic martyrdoms for prosecutions in food adulteration cases, thanks to tarred trials blameable on the judicial process. The Srate Government bas a duty to sanct.lon the required courts in obedience to the mandat'e ot Article 21 which implies judicial justice without undue delay.

pp. 4–5, margin D

Maybe, there is grievance for the petitioner that he was disabled m defending himsel! properly, hampered by the lapse of five years, but unfortunately the point not pres•ed before the High Court; and, we do not think it proper to investigate the substantiality of the prejudice.

p. 5, margin C

As for the sentence, true that, in this case, it is not shown that the petitioner is a big merchant. Perhaps he was a petty dealer and counsel represents that the trade has been wound up. It is also submitted that the petitioner has served about three months out of the six months of imprisonment. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, it is open to the petitioner to move the State Government to remit the remaining portion of the sentence, if so advised, and it would be for the Government to consider at all whether it should exercise its power of remission and its impact on society. N.K.A. Petition dismissed.

p. 5, margin D