Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1989 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1989 (1) TMI 222 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the “Supari” concerned in this case was a “Fruit-product” or, alternatively, a “Flavouring-Agent” within the meaning of Rule 29(f) or (m) respectively and, accordingly, the use in it of permitted coal-tar dyes or food-colours was not prohibited? Whether, even if, after an elaborate enquiry, it was held that “Supari” was not a “Food-product” appellant having acted bonafide on a possible and not an unreasonable view of the nature and classification of the goods, was, at all events, entitled to the benefit of the doubt? Held that:- This is not a case of a relieving provision excepting from the definition of an offence where the Rule of construction against doubtful penalisation operates. The offence is really a violation of a prohibition imposed on a penalty as a social-defence mechanism in a socio-economic legislation. No form of words have ever yet been framed, with regard to which some ingenious counsel could not suggest a difficulty. But in the context of the present statute, it would be a strain on the statutory language and the statutory-scheme to include “Supari” in the form in which it was sold within “Fruit-Products” as understood in clause (f) of Rule 29. The first contention has, accordingly, no substance. The second contention is that petitioner had acted bonafide on a particular understanding of the Rule 29 (7) which could not be said to be wholly implausible and that, therefore, even if that understanding is found to be defective, he should be entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Appeal dismissed.
|