SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.R. MUDHOLKAR, R.S. BACHAWAT AND P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ.
M/s. Baborally Sardar and others, Appellants
Versus
Corporation of Calcutta, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. C. Das Gupta, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Sukumar Ghose, Advocate, with him), for Appellants; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General for India, (M/s. A. N. Sinha and P. K. Mukherjee, Advocates, with him), for Respondent.
PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 - S. 16 (1) (A) (I) - S. 19 (2) - SALE OF ADULTERATED CONDENSED MILK - DEFENCE UNDER S. 19 (2) - REQUIREMENTS - LABEL ON TIN CONTAINER - WHETHER SUFFICIENT WARRANTY - HELD, NO.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, a firm and its partner, were convicted under S. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling adulterated condensed milk. They claimed a defence under S. 19 (2) of the Act, arguing that they had purchased the milk with a warranty from the trader and had no reason to believe that it was not of the prescribed quality.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellants failed to establish the defence under S. 19 (2) because they did not have a written warranty in the prescribed form. The label on the tin container gave a description of the article of food, but it did not give a warranty certifying that the food is the same in nature, substance and quality as demanded by the vendor.
Issues: Whether the appellants had a valid defence under S. 19 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the label on the tin container did not constitute a valid warranty under S. 19 (2) of the Act because it did not certify that the food was the same in nature, substance and quality as demanded by the vendor. The court also held that the appellants failed to prove that they had no reason to believe that the food was not of the prescribed quality.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
Judgement
MUDHOLKAR, J. (For himself and P. Satyanarayana Raju, J.) : This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the High Court of Calcutta setting aside the acquittal of M/s. Baburally Sardar of Steward Hogg Market, Calcutta appellant No. 1 and of Abdul Razzak, a partner of that firm appellant No. 2, in respect of an offence under S. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with S. 7 (i) of that Act. The facts which are not in dispute are briefly these: On June 1, 1960 a Food Inspector of the Corporation of Calcutta visited the shop of the appellants. At that time Abdul Razzak was in charge. He took samples of Comela Brand condensed milk from the shop, one of which was sent to the Public Analyst. Upon an analysis made by the Public Analyst the milk fat content of the condensed milk was found to be 3.4 per cent which did not conform to the prescribed standard in respect of condensed milk. A complaint was thereupon lodged against the firm before the Municipal Magistrate and Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta. Apart from the firm five other persons, including Abdul Razzak were also named as accused persons. One of the accused persons, Mohd. Yasin did not appear but it was represented to the learned magistrate that the person was not mentally fit. Thereupon the counsel for the Corporation gave him up. The other accused persons pleaded not guilty and were eventually acquitted by the Magistrate. Against that order an appeal was preferred before the High Court under S. 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court, however, allowed the appeal only against the appellant but dismissed it against the remaining accused persons.
2. The defence of the appellants was based upon S. 19 (2) of the Act and was briefly this: The tins of condensed milk were purchased by the firm on May 3, 1960 from Messrs S. Choudhury Brothers under a document of Sale Ex. A. At that time the firm had demanded a warranty from the traders, that is, Messrs Choudhury Brothers but they did not furnish a written guarantee on the ground that a certificate and a warranty had been given on each tin of condensed milk. The appellants further pleaded that the tins were in the same condition in which they were when they were purchased from Messrs Choudhury Brothers and that they had no reason to believe that there was any alternation in their nature, substance or quality subsequent to the purchase of the tins. It may be mentioned that an attempt was made to secure the appearance of S. Choudhury Messrs Choudhury Brothers but it failed because he could not be traced at the address given in the cash memo.
3. Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act, amongst other things, provides that if any person, whether by himself or by any person on his behalf stores or sells any article of food in contravention of any provisions of the Act or of the rules made thereunder he shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and/or with fine which may extend to Rs. 2,000 or both. Section 2 (i) defines the word "adulterated". According to the definition an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated in various circumstances, one of which is where the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard. In the Act "prescribed" means prescribed by the rules. Rules 5 of the Rules framed by the Central Government under S. 23 (1) of the Act read with S. 4 (2) thereof runs thus:
"Standards of quality of the various articles of food specified in Appendix B to these rules as defined in that appendix."
The definition of standard of quality for condensed milk is given in A. 11.07 of Appendix B and runs thus:
"Condensed milk means milk which has been concentrated from full cream milk by removal of part of its water with or without the addition of sugar, and includes the article commonly known as evaporated milk but does not include the article commonly known as dried milk or milk
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.