JUDGMENT

SARKARIA J:—This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of a learned single Judge of the High Court of Delhi. It arises our to these circumstances :

On Jan, 8, 1969, B. R. Kochhar, Food Inspector, purchased 600 grams of Kaju-Tukra (cashewnut pieces) as sample for analysis from the grocery shop of Kacheroo Mal, Respondent in Khari Baoli, Delhi. The sample was divided into three equal parts and sealed into three bottles. An inventory was prepared which was read over and explained to the respondent, who thereafter signed it. One of these bottles was given to the respondent, one was retained by the Inspector, while the third was handed over to the Public analyst on the following day for examination. The Public Analyst has reported:

"Date of Analysis : 10-1-1969. Insect-infested pieces of Kajus : 21.9% and I am of the opinion that the same is adulterated due to insect infested pieces of Kajus to the extent of 21.9%."

2. On the preceding facts, the Food Inspector filed a complaint for prosecution of the respondent in respect of an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act). The trial Magistrate convicted and sentenced him for six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of rupees 1000/-. Kacheroomal s appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, failed. Against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, he preferred a revision to the High Court. The revision was heard by a learned Judge who held that since no living insect was found in the sample pieces examined by the analyst, the same could not be called "insectinfested" within the contemplation of Section 2 (i) (f) of the Act. The learned Judge was of the opinion "that the presence of living insects is necessary before an article insects is necessary before an article could be called "insect-infested". According to him, "the intention of the legislature by using this word in Section 2 (i) (f) in the sentence if the article is insect-infested clearly is that at the time of analysis infestation by insects should be present". It was further observed that if only dead insects were present, the sample could be called insect-damaged and not insect-infested . Since the report of the Public Analyst did not show the presence of living insects in the Kaju sample pieces, it was concluded that the same could not be said to be adulterated . On this reasoning, the revision-petition was allowed and the conviction of Kacheroo Mal was set aside. Hence this appeal by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

3. Having heard the learned Counsel on both sides, we are of opinion that the construction put by the learned Judge of the High Court is manifestly erroneous. It has been disapproved by a Division Bench of the same High Court in Dhanraj v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, ILR (1970) 2 Delhi 681. Indeed, Mr. D. Mukherji, the learned Counsel for Kacheroo Mal has not tried to support it.

4. The Act has been enacted to curb and remedy the widespread evil of food-adulteration, and to ensure the sale of wholesome food to the people. It is well settled that wherever possible, without unreasonable stretching or straining, the language of such a statute should be construed in a manner which would suppress the mischief, advance the remedy, promote its object. prevent its subtle evasion and foil its artful circumvention. The construction adopted by the learned Judge is repugnant to the cardinal rule of interpretation. With respect it is less rational 396 but too literal, narrow and pedantic. It would be straining one s common sense to say that an article of food which is infested with living insects and is consequently unwholesome for human consumption, ceases to be so and becomes wholesome, when these insects die out and the infestation turns into an infestation by dead insects. The expression insect-infested is to be construed in the context of an article of food meant for human consumpt