SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(SC) 107

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A. VARADARAJAN AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.**
State (Delhi Administration), Appellant
Versus
Puran Mal, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 539 of 1984, D/- 26-3-1985.
Versus
Mr. D. K. Sen, Sr. Advocate; Mr. G. D. Gupta, Mr. R. N. Poddar, Advocates with him for Appellant; Mr. D. B. Vohra, Advocate for Respondent.

Advocates:
D.B.VOHRA, D.K.Sen, G.D.GUPTA, R.N.Poddar

Headnote:(i) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Section 7 read with, section 16-Respondent tried for an offence Sample of Lal Mirchi -Report by Public Analyst--Contained nine living meal worms-Challenged by respondent-Report des not satisfy requirement of definition of adulterated article of food-Prosecution failed to prove-Magistrate acquitted respondent-Appeal against Judgment of High Court. (Paras 1 & 2)

       (ii) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Section 2(1)(f) of the Act defines-Word adulterated-Report of Public Analyst Does not support the case of prosecution that ‘Lal Mirchi-Was adulterated-Even if nine worms found by Public Analyst in the sample were considered to be insects-Public Analyst not expressed-Sample of Lal Mirchi was either worms infested or insect infested-And sample was unfit for human consumption. (Paras 6)

       Held, the prosecution has not established by any satisfactory evidence the requirement of Section 2(1)(6) of the Act.

Judgment

VARADARAJAN, J. :- This appeal by special leave is by the Delhi Administration and directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing Criminal Revision No. 268 of 1982 in limine. That criminal revision was filed against the acquittal of the respondent by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in Case No. 11 of 1982, in which the respondent was tried for an offence under S. 7 read with S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The Food Inspector, P.W.4 took a sample of lal mirchi powder from the grocery shop of the respondent. On analysis by the Public Analyst it was found in Ex. PW 1/C that the sample contained nine living meal-worms. There was no other evidence in support of the case of the prosecution that the lal mirchi powder was adulterated. It was contended before the learned Magistrate that the evidence by way of the Public Analysts report does not satisfy the requirement of the definition of adulterated article of food contained in S. 2(l)(f) of the Act. The learned Magistrate accepted this contention and found that the prosecution has failed to prove that the lal mirchi powder was adulterated and he accordingly acquitted the respondent.

3. The Calcutta High Court in Narkeldanga Roller Flour Mills v. Corporation of Calcutta 1973 FAC 257 has observed :

"Clause (f) of Section 2 defines the word adulterated and an article of food is said to be adulterated if it is insect-infested. By physical examination the Public Analyst found blackish worms and the sample there is at best worm infested. Is the word worm synonymous with insect? Did the legislature intend to condemn wheat products due to presence of seasonal worms? The word insect is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as "small invertebrate segmented animal having head, thorax, abdomen, and three pairs of thoracic legs, usually with one or two pairs of thoracic wings." The Word "worm" in the same dictionary is defined as "kinds of invertebrate limbless or apparently limbless creeping animal, such as are segmented in rings or are parasite in the intestines or tissues." There is, therefore, a good deal of difference between worms and insects and a sample of food becomes adulterated only when it is insect-infested. In the present sample, however, worms were found to be present and that in our view, does not satisfy the requirements of the definition "adulterated" under section 2 of the Act."

4. According to the Websters New World Dictionary (1962 edition), worm means "any of many long, slender, soft-bodied creeping animals, some segmented, that live by burrowing underground or as parasites, as the earth-worm, tapeworm". According, to Websters New World Dictionary infest means "to overrun or inhabit in large numbers, usually so as to be harmful or bothersome, swarm in or about." According to that dictionary an insect means "any of a large group of small invertebrate animals characterized, in the adult state, by division of the body into head, thorax, and abdomen, three pairs of membranous wings: beetles, bees, flies, wasps, mosquitoes, etc. are insects."

5. According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, worm means "a slender, creeping naked, limbless animal usually brown or reddish with a soft body divided into a series of segments; an earthworm." Acoording to that dictionary an insect means, "a small invertebrate animal. usually having a body divided into segments, and several Pairs of legs, and often winged".

6. Therefore it is not possible to hold that a worm and an insect are the same.

7. Even if worms and insects are the same the appellant is not, out of difficulty in this case. As already stated the Public Analyst has found in the sample only nine living meal worms and he has neither stated that it is insect-infested nor that it is unfit for human consumption on account of the presence of the meal worms nor that it is otherwise unfit for human consumption.

8. According







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top