Judgment

SHAH, J.: The petitioners who are traders in foodgrains, edible oils and other articles of food, challenge the validity of S. 7 read with Ss. 2 (v) and 2 (ix) and S.19 (2) (i) and S. 10 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 37 of 1954 and the rules framed thereunder. They claim that by the Act and the rules the fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 14, 19 (1) (g) and 20 (3) of the Constitution are infringed.

2. The Parliament, with a view to control adulteration and misbranding of articles of food, enacted the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The petitioners concede that they do not claim a fundamental right to carry on business in adulterated or misbranded foodstuffs: they claim that they are honest traders, and do not resort to any malpractice, still in carrying on their business in foodstuffs they are, by the Act, subjected to restrictions which are not reasonable. They contend that the Act presumes every trader charged with an offence under S. 16 (1) (a) to be guilty and imposes upon him the burden of proving that he is not guilt of the offence charged, by establishing facts which are not within his knowledge, or which without gre