LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Raj Kumar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Criminal Appeal · 2019 INSC 1132Decided 4 Oct 2019
Criminal Appeal No. 1541 of 2019
Justice Deepak Gupta · Justice Aniruddha Bose

Background

In 1995, a Food Inspector collected a milk sample from the appellant, which on analysis was found deficient in Milk Solid Non-Fat content against the prescribed standard. The appellant was prosecuted and convicted by the trial court, and his conviction was upheld by the Sessions Court and the High Court. He appealed to the Supreme Court more than two decades after the offence, arguing that the shortfall was marginal and likely caused by delay in testing, that he was denied a chance to get a second sample tested, and that he was illiterate and his signature was wrongly obtained.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court rejected all of the appellant's arguments, holding there was no evidence that the delay affected the milk sample (which had been preserved with formalin), that he had been given but did not exercise his option to send a sample to the Central Food Laboratory, and that lower courts had already found the signatures were genuinely his. The Court reaffirmed settled law that once a legal standard is fixed for a food item, even a marginal shortfall makes it "adulterated" in the eyes of the law, regardless of whether it was actually harmful to health. It also held that courts cannot use Article 142 of the Constitution to award a sentence below the legally mandated minimum, nor can they direct the government to commute a sentence: that power belongs only to the appropriate Government under Section 433 Cr.P.C. The appeal was dismissed and the appellant was directed to surrender to serve the remainder of his sentence.

Lesson Learnt

In food safety cases, "it was only a little below standard" is not a valid legal defence: statutory purity standards must be strictly met, and courts have no power to reduce a legally fixed minimum sentence just because of the passage of time.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case