Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J. - The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal by the accused, by special leave, is whether R. 32 (b) and (e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules) is ultra vires as being beyond the rule making power under S. 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). As the rules have been framed by the Central Government, notice had been issued by this Court to the Attorney General.

2. The first appellant is a partner of the second appellant M/s Mohan Ghee Laboratories carrying on business in Pure Deshi Ghee, in Gurdwara Road, New Delhi-5. On December 29, 1962 at about 12.50 p.m. five, Food Inspectors of the respondent visited the Laboratories of the appellants at Gurdwara Road, and all of them purchased ghee from different containers on payment of price. After doing through the necessary formalities as required by the Act and the Rules, the samples of ghee purchased by the Food Inspectors were sent to the Public Analysts for Delhi Municipal Corporation for analysis. The Public Analysts tested the sample on January 3, 1963 and reported that all the five samples taken by the five, Food Inspectors and sent to him conformed to standard. It is also to be noted that on December 29, 1962, the Food Inspectors had also seized the labelled tins from which samples of ghee had been taken.

3. On August 31, 1963, the respondent filed five complaints in the Court of the Magistrate, 1st Class, Delhi against the appellants under Section 7/16 of the Act read with Rule 32 (b) and (e) of the Rules. As all the complaints are on the same pattern, we will just refer to one of those complaints, filed on the basis of the report of the Food Inspector Lekh Raj Bhutt. The averments are that the said Food Inspector on December 29, 1962 at about 12.55 p. m. took a sample of pure ghee from the appellants from one of the sealed tins of pure ghee exhibited for sale at the sale counter after due observance of the Rules. One sealed bottle was given to the appellants at the spot. The labeled tin of pure ghee from which the sample was taken was also seized by the Food Inspector in the presence of witnesses and the said tin is produced as an exhibit. The complaint further proceeds to state that the sample of pure ghee taken from the appellants conformed to the standard of pure ghee. According to the report of the Public Analysts, the sealed tin of pure ghee from which the sample was taken had a label, but it did not conform to the packing and labelling Rules under the Act inasmuch as the name and business address of the manufacturer or packer or vendor and batch or Code numbers had not been specified on the label as required under Rule 32 (b) and (e) of the Rules; and that the appellants are guilty for non-observance of the Labelling Rules. The respondent ultimately prayed that the appellants may be punished, according to law, for contravention of Rule 32 (b) and (e) of the Rules.

4-5. Similarly, the charge framed in each of the five cases was also on the same pattern. The charge after referring to the substance of the complaint and after referring to the fact that the sample of ghee taken from the shop of the appellants conformed to the standard alleged.

"But complete address, Batch or Code No. etc., were not written on the ghee tins seized by the Food Inspectors.

Therefore, you are to show cause why you should not be punished under Section 7/16, P. F. A. Act, 1954, read with Rule 32 (b) and (e) of P. F. A. Rules, 1955."

6. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge.

7. One of the Food Inspectors, Dina Nath has given evidence as P. W. 1. We will only refer to that part of his evidence which has a bearing on the point for consideration before us. In chief examination he has stated that when he examined the tin from which the sample of ghee had been taken, he found that the tin did not bear the batch number, the code number and t