# STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. KARTAR SINGH

- **Citation:** [1964] 6 S.C.R. 679
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962-05-02
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 1962
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-uttar-pradesh-v-kartar-singh-3213
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
v.
KARTAR SINGH
(P.B. GAJBNDRAGADKAR, C.1.,
A.
K.
WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA
AND
AYYANGAR, JJ )
SARKAR, K . . N.
N. RAJAGOPALA
Constitution of India-Prevention of Fsod Adulteration-Fization of
Reichert value of ghee for different State• of India-If un7'tuoMbk
or discriminatory-Constitution of India, Art. 14-Prevention of
Food Adulterations Act, 1954, ss. 1, 16(l)(a) (i), 23-Prevtntion
of Food Adulteration. Rules, 1955, r. 5, Appendix B A·ll, iltm 14.
The respondent was tried for the commission of an offence under
s. 7 read with s. 16(1 )(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954 for selling adulterated ghee.
The analysis of the ghce bad
disclosed that it bad a Reichert Value of only 22·5 whereas tho minimum
Reichert value fixed for Uttar Pradesh, where the respondent sold tho
ghoe, was 28. The defence of the respondent was that he bad obtained
the ghee which ho sold from Jodhpur where the Reichert value fixed
was only 22 and that the sample must be held not to be adulterated
on the basis of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in State v.
Malik Ram, A.I.R. 1962 All. 156.
This decision laid down that a
distinction should be made between gbee obtained from cattle in the
hill districts and gbee obtained from cattle in the plains and that ghce
obtained from the hill districts of U.P. cannot be held to be adulterated
if its Reiehert value was equal to that prescribed for Himachal Pradesh
which is a hilly area.
It was the contention of the respondent that bis
ghee was admittedly pahadi ghee and therefore this decision would apply.
The First Class Magistrate rejected these contentions and convicted
him and sentenced him to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500. On
appeal the Sessions Judge concurred in the findings of the trial court
but reduced the sentence. The respondent thereupon filed a Criminal
Revision Petition before the High Court. The High Court agreed with
the courts below that the ghee was not Jodhpur ghee but it was produced
locally. But it held that the Reichert values as fixed were not based
on any reasonable classification and therefore it was sufficient if a vendor
satisfied the minimum standard prescribed for any area in tho country
and since the minimum prescribed for certain areas is 21 and since the
ghee in question had 22 · 2 the respondent was not guilty of the olfence
charged. The State thereupon appealed to this Court by way of a
certificate under Art. 134(l)(e) of the Constitution.
It was uried by the appellant that tho High Court was wrong in
striking down or re-drafting the mies framed by the Central Government
in the manner in which the High Court has done purportina to invoke
I964
Ftbruary 6,
1964
State of Uttar
Pradesh
v.
~artar Singh
68o
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[rg64]
Art. 14 of the Constitution and virtually setting up what the High Court
considered was the reasonable standard.
Held: (i) Where the Government have prescribed certain standatds
after taking into considerations various factors the court cannot strike
down these standards as unreasonable or discriminatory merely on some
apriori reasoning.
It can do so only by basing its decision on materials
placed before it by way of scientific analysis. The party invoking Art. 14
must make
averments with details
to sustain such l plea and lead
evidence to establish his allegations.
In the absence of such plea and
evidence the court cannot accept the statement of a party as to the
unconstitutionality of a rule and refuse to enforce that rule as it stands
merely because in its view the standards are too high and for this reason
the rule is unreasonable.
(ii) Applyin2' these principles it is found that the case State v.
Malik Ram (A.l.R. 1962 All. 156) was wrongly Jeci<lcd by the Allahabad
High Court. In the case under appeal the High Court took the matter
a step further and adopted the lowest Reichert value prescribed for any
area in the country as what should be adopted for every other ar

## Text

6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
v.
KARTAR SINGH
(P.B. GAJBNDRAGADKAR, C.1.,
A.
K.
WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA
AND
AYYANGAR, JJ )
SARKAR, K . . N.
N. RAJAGOPALA
Constitution of India-Prevention of Fsod Adulteration-Fization of
Reichert value of ghee for different State• of India-If un7'tuoMbk
or discriminatory-Constitution of India, Art. 14-Prevention of
Food Adulterations Act, 1954, ss. 1, 16(l)(a) (i), 23-Prevtntion
of Food Adulteration. Rules, 1955, r. 5, Appendix B A·ll, iltm 14.
The respondent was tried for the commission of an offence under
s. 7 read with s. 16(1 )(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954 for selling adulterated ghee.
The analysis of the ghce bad
disclosed that it bad a Reichert Value of only 22·5 whereas tho minimum
Reichert value fixed for Uttar Pradesh, where the respondent sold tho
ghoe, was 28. The defence of the respondent was that he bad obtained
the ghee which ho sold from Jodhpur where the Reichert value fixed
was only 22 and that the sample must be held not to be adulterated
on the basis of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in State v.
Malik Ram, A.I.R. 1962 All. 156.
This decision laid down that a
distinction should be made between gbee obtained from cattle in the
hill districts and gbee obtained from cattle in the plains and that ghce
obtained from the hill districts of U.P. cannot be held to be adulterated
if its Reiehert value was equal to that prescribed for Himachal Pradesh
which is a hilly area.
It was the contention of the respondent that bis
ghee was admittedly pahadi ghee and therefore this decision would apply.
The First Class Magistrate rejected these contentions and convicted
him and sentenced him to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500. On
appeal the Sessions Judge concurred in the findings of the trial court
but reduced the sentence. The respondent thereupon filed a Criminal
Revision Petition before the High Court. The High Court agreed with
the courts below that the ghee was not Jodhpur ghee but it was produced
locally. But it held that the Reichert values as fixed were not based
on any reasonable classification and therefore it was sufficient if a vendor
satisfied the minimum standard prescribed for any area in tho country
and since the minimum prescribed for certain areas is 21 and since the
ghee in question had 22 · 2 the respondent was not guilty of the olfence
charged. The State thereupon appealed to this Court by way of a
certificate under Art. 134(l)(e) of the Constitution.
It was uried by the appellant that tho High Court was wrong in
striking down or re-drafting the mies framed by the Central Government
in the manner in which the High Court has done purportina to invoke
I964
Ftbruary 6,
1964
State of Uttar
Pradesh
v.
~artar Singh
68o
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[rg64]
Art. 14 of the Constitution and virtually setting up what the High Court
considered was the reasonable standard.
Held: (i) Where the Government have prescribed certain standatds
after taking into considerations various factors the court cannot strike
down these standards as unreasonable or discriminatory merely on some
apriori reasoning.
It can do so only by basing its decision on materials
placed before it by way of scientific analysis. The party invoking Art. 14
must make
averments with details
to sustain such l plea and lead
evidence to establish his allegations.
In the absence of such plea and
evidence the court cannot accept the statement of a party as to the
unconstitutionality of a rule and refuse to enforce that rule as it stands
merely because in its view the standards are too high and for this reason
the rule is unreasonable.
(ii) Applyin2' these principles it is found that the case State v.
Malik Ram (A.l.R. 1962 All. 156) was wrongly Jeci<lcd by the Allahabad
High Court. In the case under appeal the High Court took the matter
a step further and adopted the lowest Reichert value prescribed for any
area in the country as what should be adopted for every other area in
the country disregarding the rules.
Hence the High Court was wrong in
allowing the revisions.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 164 of 1962.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 2, 1962,
of the Allahabad
High Court in Criminal Revision No.
1579 of 1961.
0. P. Rana and C. P. Lal, for the appellant.
Harnam Singh Chadda and Harbans Singh, for the respondent.
February 6, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
AYYANGAR J.-This appeal which comes before us on
a certificate of fitness .granted by the High Court of
Allahabad under Art. 134(1) (c) of the Constitution,
is
against a judgment of that Court acquitting the respondent
Kartar Singh of an offence under s. 7 read withs. 16(1)(a)
(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 which
may be conveniently referred to as the Act.
b S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
681
The facts giving rise to the prosecution are briefly these:
1964
The respondent runs a shop at Haldwani and among
the State of Uttar
products sold by him is ghee.
On March 19, 1960
a
Pradesh
quantity of the ghee was purchased by the Food Inspector
Karta;· Singh'
of the area and he put samples of the purchase into three
-
phials which were sealed in the respondent's presence. It Ayyangar 1•
may be mentioned that even in the seizure memo the Food
Inspector noted the ghee purchased by him as "pahadi ghee".
One of the samples was forwarded to the Public Analyst
to the Government of Uttar Pradesh for analysis for
ascertaining whether the said ghee was
adulterated.
The
analysis disclosed that in several respects the sample
was
sub-standard and that in particular it had a Reichert V aluc
of 22 · 5 as against the prescribed minimum of 28 for ghee
in Uttar Pradesh.
After setting out the details of the analysis, the Public Analyst expressed the opinion that
the
sample "contained a small proportion of vegetable fat or
oil foreign to pure ghee".
On receipt of this report,
the
Medical Officer of Health, Haldwani sanctioned the prosecution of the respondent and a complaint was thereafter
laid before the Magistrate Ist Class by the Food Inspector.
The respondent pleaded not guilty and entered on
his
defence. Subsequently, the second sample was got analysed
by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, who reported
that his analysis disclosed a Reichert Value of 21·7 as
against 22 · 5 of the Public Analyst. The opinion expressed
by him as regards the sample of ghee which he analysed was
the same as that of the Public Analyst, viz., that the sample
was adulterated.
The defence of the respondent who admitted that he
had sold the ghee, samples of which were the subject of
analysis, but denied it was adulterated, was two-fold:
(I)
He had obtained the ghee which he sold from Jodhpur,
( 2) The sample must be held not to be adulterated on the
basis of the decision of the Allahabad High Court m State v.
Malik Ram(').
The plea by the respondent regarding the ghee
sold
having come from Jodhpur was made because if this were
established under the rules framed unde; the Act, to which
(I) A.I.R. 1962 All. 156.
1961
State of U liar
l'rad,.lt
' v.
Kartar Singh
Ayyangar I.
682
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[rg64]
we shall later refer, the minimum Reichert value prescribed
for ghee in the Jodhpur area was 21 and that minimum requirement was satisfied by the sample analysed.
The respondent led evidence to prove his purchase from Jodhpur
but the learned Magistrate did not accept this case.
The other defence was a point of law relying on
the
decision of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court
reported as State v.
Malik Ram('). The learned Judges
who
decided
that
case drew
a distinction
between
ghee obtained from cattle in the hill clistricts of Uttar
Pradesh and those from cattle in the plains.
This decision
was relied on by the respondent because the ghee sold by
him was noted as 'pahadi ghee' by the Food Inspector. The
learned Judges held that notwithstanding the terms of the
rules to which we shall later refer, ghee obtained from hilly
areas of Uttar Pradesh like Kumaun hills, could not be
held to be adulterated if its Reichert value was equal to
that prescribed for Himachal Pradesh which was
mostly
a hilly area.
They therefore held that though the rules
under the Food Adulteration Act prescribed a minimum
Reichert value of 28 for ghee for the entire State of Uttar
Pradesh, still if ghee from hill areas of the Uttar Pradesh
State reached a minimum of 26 Reichert value, such ghee
would not be "adulterated ghee".
We shall consider the
correctness of this decision after completing the narrative
of the proceedings.
The learned Magistrate held that this
decision did not affect the present case because the Reichert
value of the respondent's ghee was less than 26.
The
Magistrate therefore convicted the respondent and sentenced
him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six
months
and a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to further imprisonment for three months.
The respondent preferred an
appeal to the Sessions
Judge Kumaon, and raised the same pleas and defences as
he put forward before the learned Magistrate.
The Sessions Judge concurred/ in the finding of the Magistrate regarding the story of the respondent having bought the ghee
from Jodhpur,
and he also agreed with the Magistrate
about the effect of the decision of the Division Bench of
the High Court which was also relied on before him. The
(l),A.l.R. 1962 All. U6.
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT PEPORTS
Sessions Judge, however, while upholding the conviction
1·educed the sentence of imprisonment from six months to
one month and the fine to Rs. 200.
The respondent thereupon filed a Criminal Revision petition to the High Court under ss. 435 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The learned Judge
of the High
Court agreed with the Courts below on the finding of fact
as regards the Jodhpur origin of the ghee observing "as the
file stands I am satisfied that this ghee was of local origin".
1 here was, of course, no point raised before him as regards
the correctness of the analysis.
The learned Judge, however, held that the basis on which the Reichert value had
been prescribed for the several areas in the country was
not based on any rational classification and he therefore
held that it was sufficient if any vendor of ghee in the
country satisfied the minimum standards prescribed for any
area under these rules.
As there were areas in the country
in regard to which a minimum Reichert value of 21 had
been prescribed, he held that the respondent was not guilty
of adulteration and so directed his acquittal.
It is from
this decision that the present appeal has been filed by the
State.
Before considering the point about the standards prescribed under the Food Adulteration Act being violative of
Art. 14, an Article which though not specifically mentioned,
is apparently the ground upon which the learned Judge has
held that the prescription of the Reichert value of 28
for
Uttar Pradesh was unenforceable, it would be necessary to
set out the statutory provisions on which the decision of
the present appeal turns.
The preamble to the Act describes it as one "to make provision for the prevention of
adulteration of food". Section 2 defines the word 'adulterated' as follows :
"An article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated-
(i) if the quality or purity of the article falls below
the prescribed standard or its constituents are
present in quantities which are in excess of the
prescnbed limits of variability;"
l~
State of Uttar
Prade1h
v,
Kartar Singh
Ayyangar I.
1964
Slate of Uttar
Pradesh
v.
Kartar Singh
Ayyanaar J.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
to read only the portion that is material. Section 3 enables
the Central Government to constitute a committee for food
standards and it runs :
"3. (1) The Central Government shall, as soon as
may be after the commencement of this Act,
constitute
a Committee called the
Central
Committee for Food Standards to advise
the
Central
Government and the State Governments on matters arising out of the administration of this Ai:t and to carry out the other
functions assigned to it under this Act.
(2) The Committee shall consist of the following
members, namely:-
( a) the Director General, Health
Services, exo!Jicio, who shall be the Chairman;
(b) the Director of the Central Food Laboratory,
ex officio;
( c) two experts nominated by the Central Gov- ·
ernment;
(d) one representative each of the Central Ministries of Food and Agriculture, Commerce
and Industry, ·Railways and Defence nominated by the Central Government;
( e) one representative each nominated by
the
Government of each State;
(f) two representatives nominated by the Central
Government to represent
the Union territories;
( g) two representatives of Industry and Commerce
nominated by the Central Government;
(h) one representative of the medical profession
nominated by the Indian Council of Medical
Research".
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
685
Section 7 which prohibits the manufacture and sale
of
adulterated food reads:
"No person shall himself or by any person on his
behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or
distribute-
( i) any adulterated food; ...... "
Section 8 makes provision for State Governments appointing
Public Analysts and s. 9 for the appointment of Food Inspectors.
The next material provision is that contained in
s. 13 which deals with the reports of the analysis of food
for the purpose of ascertaining whether there are adulterated or sub-standard etc.
Its first sub-section directs
the
Public Analyst to make a report and under sub-s. ( 3) the
Certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food
Laboratory under sub-s. ( 2) is to supersede the report
given by a Public Analyst under sub-s. (I). Section
16
provides for the penalties for offences under the Act.
Section 23 confers on the Central Government power to make
rules but these rules have to be framed after consultation
with the Committee established under s. 3 and among the
rules which might be made areSection 23 (I )(b )--defining the standards of quality
for, and fixing the limits of variability permissible in respect
of, any article of food;. . . . . ...... .
"23. (2) All rules made by the Central Government
under this Act shall as soon as possible after
they are made be laid before both Houses
of Parliament."
Under the power conferred by s. 23, the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, were promulgated.
Rule 5 which occurs in Part III of the rules--headed
"Definitions and Standards of quality"-specifies that "the
standards of quality of the various articles of food specified
in Appendix B to these rules are as defined in that appendix." Ghee is one of the articles of food whose standards
are ·prescribed in Appendix B, milk and milk products being
listed under head A'.-11.
Ghee is dealt with in item 14 of
A-11 and the standard prescribed for it runs:
Ghee means the pure clarified fat derived solely
from milk or from curds or from cream to
1964
State of Uttar
Prad<sh
..
Kartar Singh
A.yyangar I.
1964
State of Uttar
Prad••h
v.
Kartar Singh
Ayyangar J,
686
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
which, no cok>uring matter or preservative has
been added. It shall conform to the following
specifications--
In Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Bhopal, ............... .
Vindhya Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal (except Bishnupur)
and PEPSU (except Mahendragarh) :
(a) ............... .
(b) Reichert Value
Not less than 28.
(c)
(d)
In Madras, Andhra, Travancore-Cochin, Hyderabad,
Mysore, Orissa, Assam, Tripura, Manipur, Madhya Bharat,
Bombay, Himachal Pradesh,
Mahendragarh District
of
PEPSU, Madhya Pradesh (except cotton tract areas) and
Ra jasthan (except Jodhpur) the specifications will be the
same as above except that Reichert value shall be not less
than 26·0.
In Saurashtra, Kutch,
cotton tract areas of Madhya
Pradesh, Jodhpur Division of Rajasthan and Bishnupur
Sub-division of West Bengal the Reichert value shall not be
less than 21 and the Butyro refractometer reading at 40°C
shall be between 41 ·5 to 45·0. The limits for free fatty
acids and moisture shall be the same as for ghee in Punjab,
PEPSU etc. given above ..
Explanation.-By cotton tract is meant the areas in
Madhya Pradesh where cotton seed is extensively fed to the
cattle.
The learned counsel for the 'State has urged before us
that the learned Judge was not justified in striking down or
re-drafting the rules framed by the Central Government in
the manner in which he has done, purporting to invoke Art.
14 of the Constitution, and in virtually setting up what he
considered was the reasonable standard of quality which
should detennine whether the ghee sold by the respondent
was adulterate.d or not.
We entirely agree with this submission.
Now, it is common ground that if the rules were
valid and the standards prescribed enforceable, the ghee
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
sold by the respondent was 'adulterated' with the result that
1964
the respondent was guilty of an offence under s. 7 read with State of Uttar
s. 16 of the Act.
The only question is whether there was
Prad••h
••
any material placed before the Court for refusing to apply
Kartar Singh
the rules for determining the standards of quality.
The standards themselves, it would be noticed, have
been prescribed by the Central Government on the advice
of a Committee which included in its composition persons
considered experts in the field of food technology and food
analysis.
In the circumstances, if the rule has to be struck
down as imposing unreasonable or discriminatory standards,
it could not be done merely on any apriori reasoning but
only as a result of materials placed before the Court by way
of scientific analysis.
It is obvious that this can be done
only when the party invoking the protection of Art.
14
makes averments with details to sustain such a plea
and
leads evidence to establish his allegations.
That where a
party seeks to impeach the validity of a rule made by a
competent authority on the ground that the rules
offend
Art. 14 the burden is on him to plead and prove the infirmity is too well established to need elaboration.
If, therefore, the respondent desired to challenge the validity
of
the rule on the ground either of its unreasonableness or its
discriminatory nature, he had to lay a foundation for it by
setting out the facts necessary to sustain such a plea and
adduce cogent and convincing evidence to make out his
case, for there is a presumption that every factor which is
relevant or material has been taken into account in formulating the classification of the zones and the prescription
of the minimum standards to each zone, and where
we
have a rule framed with the assistance c,Z a committee containing experts such as the one constituted under s. 3 of the
Act, )hat presumption is strong, if not overwhelming. We
might in this connection add that the respondent cannot
assert any fundamental right under Art. 19 (l ) to carry on
business in adulterated foodstuffs.
Where the necessary facts have been pleaded and established, the Court would have materials before it on which
it could base findings, as regards the reasonableness
or
otherwise or of the discriminatory nature of the rules. In
.4.yyangar /,
1964
State of Uttar
Pradesh
v.
Kartar Singh
Ayyangar /,
688
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
the absence of a pleading and proof of unreasonableness or
arbitrariness the Court cannot accept the statement of a
party as to the unreasonableness or unconstitutionality of a
ruie and refuse to enforce the rule as it stands merely
because in its view the standards are too high and for this
reason the rule is unreasonable. In the case before us
there was neither pleading nor proof of any facts directed
to that end.
The only basis on which the contention regarding unreasonableness or discrimination was raised was
an apriori argument addressed to the Court, that the division into the zones was not rational, in that hilly and plain
areas of the country were not differentiated for the prescrip- ·
tion of the minimum Reichert values.
That a distinction
should exist between hilly regions
and plains, was again
based on apriori reasoning resting on the different minimum
Reichert values
prescribed for
Himachal Pradesh and
Uttar Pradesh and on no other.
It was, however, not as
if the entire State of Himachal Pradesh is of uniform elevation or even as if no part of that State is plain country but
yet if the same minimum was prescribed for the entire area
of Himachal Pradesh, that would clearly show that the
elevation of a place is not the only factor to be taken into
account.
At this stage it might be pointed out that the test for
Reichert or Re1chert-Meissl value of ghee is one of the
important tests for
detecting
adulteration
with certain
vegetable oils by determining the proportion of the volatile
soluble acids in the ghee.
The presence of the adulterant
disturbs the ratio existing in normal butter fat or ghee
between soluble and insoluble acids and volatile and nonvolatile acids. The Reichert value of pure ghee is not
constant, but is dependent on several factors-among them
the breed of the cattle to be found in an area, whether the
cattle are pasture fed or stall fed, and the nature of the
additional feed given, the nature of the terrain, the rain-fall
and climatic conditions etc.
That the feed available for
the cattle is a very material and determining factor is apparent even from the rules, for a distinction ;. drawn between
different areas of Madhya Pradesh depending on cotton seed
being available for feeding the cattle. It is on the basis
oi the conjoint effects of these and other factors which
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT RI~.PORTS
689
obtain in the different areas, some pointing to a
higher
Reichert value and others neutralising it and after extensive
survey conducted from samples collected and analysed
during various seasons, that the country has been divided into
zones under the rule in Appendix 'B' and the minimum
Reichert value ascertained and prescribed for each. From
the fact that certain areas includen in some of the zones are
hilly, it does not automatically follow that that was the
potent factor or the only factor which
was taken into
consideration for prescribing the standard for that region.
Without appreciating the several factors which bear upon
the Reichert value of the ghee produced in a locality and
the value attributed to each o,f these several relevant factors,
it would not be possible fo pronounce upon the reasonablenciss or correctness of the classification of the areas and tbe
prescription e>f different standards to each of them.
In State v. Malik Ram(') a Division Bench of
the
High Court held that because certain areas of Uttar
Praoe,.., \\ere hilly, the Reichert value prescribed for the
hilly areas like those in Himachal Pradesh should be adopted and be given effect to notwithstanding there was no ambiguity in the rules .., regards the area where the prescribed
standards should be applicable.
Except a principle which
the Court deduced from the rules themselves there was no
material before the Court Illat the minimum standard prescribed for Uttar Pradesh was defective in any respect. The
approach adopted by the learned Judges in Malik Ram's
case appears to us to be a reversal of the well-recognised
principle that it is for those who challenge the constitutionality of a statute or a statutory rule to allege and prove the
grounds of invalidity and the adoption of the contrary rule
that when a party makes such a challenge it is for those
who seek to support it to sustain it by positive evidence of
its reasonableness and legality.
The Court evolved from
a reading of the rules a principle that the standards vary
with the elevation of the place, without having before
it
any materials for such a conclusion save what it considered
was the rationale underlying the division into zones.
As
already explained, even in Himachal Pradesh the elevation
of every place is not the same and there are areas which
(I) A.I.R. 1962 All. 156.
134-159 S,C,-44
,
19/U
Stat• of uPraduli
...
X.artar Siltllli
Ayya- 1.
196"
Sta< of Ut:ar
Pradt1h
...
Lutar Slnzh
A.7Y•n1ar I.
690
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[r964)
are higher !hail others and so the test adopted does
not
even satisfy logic.
We do not consider that the
Court
was justified in practically legislating and laying down what
the rules should be rather than give effect to the law
by
adherence to the rules as framed.
In the case now under appeal the learned Judge tc0k
the matter a step further and he adopted the lowest Reichert
value prescribed for any area in the country as that which
he would adopt for every other area in the country disregarding the rules.
We find no justification for this eit'1er
and, in fact, if the learned Judges in Malik Ram·s case(')
were in error in applying the Himachal standard to hilly
areas of Uttar Pradesh, the judgment now under appeal
discloses even more error. We might add that if one could
legitimately discard the standard prescribed in the rules, as
the learned Judge has done, we do not see any principle in
hdlding, as he seems to indicatt. that where the Reichert
value is below 21 the ghee should be treated as adulterated.
We, therefore, hold that the _learned Judge was not justified
in allowing the revision of the respondent and acquitting
him.
The result is that the appeal is allowed, the acquittal of
the respondent is set aside and his conviction restored.
It was stated to us on behalf of the respondent that of
the imprisonment for one month to
which the sentence
passed on him by the Magistrate was modified by
the
Sessions Judge, he had already undergone a sentence of
18 days.
He has been on bail practically since the ad1.:ission of his Revision Petition in the High Court.
In
the
circumstances, we consider that the sentence of imprisonment passed on him might be reduced to the period already
undergone.
The sentence of fine imposed will, however,
stand.
Appeal allowed.
1) /..I.R. 1962 All. 156.