Summarize the following court judgment. : Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2088 of 1979. From the Judgment and Order dated 25 7 1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1189/79. N. Ali Khan and A. D. Mathur for the Petitioner The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER	 J. Counsel for the petitioner states that the sentence imposed upon his client for the offence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act must be reduced because the adulterant	 namely	 prohibited coal tar dye	 is	 in his submission	 non injurious or an innocent mix. Therefore	 the imprisonment part of the sentence	 it was urged	 should be eliminated. It is true that the High Court has observed that the "colour which was mixed with powdered chillies" is not mentioned in the Public Analyst 's report to be injurious to human life. It does not follow that because it is not specifically mentioned to be injurious	 it is non injurious. Absence of evidence is not equal to evidence of absence. For ought we know	 the prohibition under the Act and the Rules has been imposed because it is harmful to human health. It is true that the High Court has	 under a mis conception	 reduced the sentence	 but we cannot be pressurised further into following the wrong path. The special leave petition is dismissed. V.D.K. Petition dismissed.

HELD: The prohibition under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules has been imposed because it is harmful to human health. [312 G] Absence of evidence is not equal to evidence of absence. Non mention in the Public Analyst 's report that the "colour which was mixed with powdered Chillies" was injurious to human life does not amount to the adulterant being non injurious. When the High Court under this misconception has already reduced the sentence	 this Court cannot under article 136 of the Constitution be pressurised further to follow the wrong path. [312 F H]