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

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus NEW KWALITY SWEET HOUSE & ORS.

Decided
5 December 1984
Judges listed
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, R.S. PATHAK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1985] 2 S.C.R. 284 · 1984 INSC 230

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.

CHANDRACHUD, C.J. As long back as on August 1, 1975 a Food Inspector purchased a sample of suji (Semolina) from the respondent accused, which was found to contain excessive moisture and ash. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi acquitted the accused by his judgment dated July 19, 1977 on the ground that the Food Inspector did not send the required quantity of the adulterated article to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Rules required the the Food Inspector to send 250 gms. of suji for analysis, whereas he sent only 200 gms. The High Court of Delhi dismissed the revision application filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi summarily.

p. 285, margin C

The learned Metropolitan Magistrate is clearly wrong in the view taken by him, from which it must follow that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the revision application summarily. The fact that a lesser quantity than that prescribed by the Rules is sent for analysis cannot constitute an impediment in the conviction of a person accused of selling adulterated food, so long as the quan· tity sent for analysis is sufficient to enable the Analyst to make a satisfactory analysis according to aceepted tests. We do not, however, propose to interfere with the order of acquittal since, this appeal was filed not so much for the purpose of securing the conviction of the accused but for the purpose of obtaining a decision from this Court on the question whether a conviction could be recorded under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act even if, a quantity smaller than that required by the Rules to be sent for analysis is sent for the purpose of analysis to the Public Analyst. That question was decided long

p. 285, margin E

COURT REPORTS (1985) 2 S.C.R. back in State of Kera/a v. Alaserry Mohammed.(1) Therefore, though the view taken by the courts below is unsupportable, we do not propose to interfere with the ultimate order passed by them.

p. 286

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

p. 286, margin A

S. R. Appeal dismissed. (1978) 2 8.C.R, 820

p. 286, margin B