JAGDISH PRASAD vs STATE OF U.P.

The Supreme Court interpreted Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, clarifying that the term 'second offence' refers to a subsequent offence in time rather than an offence of the same type. The Court held that the Act does not differentiate between trivial and serious offences, and thus, a second offence under the Act, regardless of its nature, warrants a higher penalty. The appellant's conviction and two-year sentence for a second offence of selling adulterated food were upheld.