Judgment

JUDGMENT:- This appeal by special leave is directed against the appellate judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court reversing the appellate judgment of acquittal of the Sessions Judge and convicting the appellant under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

2. The appellant was called upon to face the following charge :-

"That on 9-7-1980, in the area of Bijhri, you were found in possession of 4 Kgs. of Masur Whole for sale kept in your shop out of which the complainant purchased from you a sample weighing 600 grams for the purposes of analysis against cash payment of Rs. 1.68, which on analysis by the Public Analyst Punjab was found to contain living and dead insects along with fragments of dead insects in abundance and about one fourth of the sample contains larva inside the grains, and the sample contained 36.0 per cent insect damaged grains against the maximum prescribed standard of 10.0 per cent and you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 16(1)(a) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and within the cognizance of this court."

The High Court found:-

"Clause (m) of section 2(i-a) and the proviso thereto, however, would be attracted only in case the sample in question even of primary food with quality or purity thereof falling below the prescribed standard or its constituents being present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability, does not render it injurious to health. Thus in the instant case the court is required to see whether the adulteration present in the sample in question renders it injurious to health or unfit for human consumption within the meaning of clause (f) of section 2(i-a) of the Act. The finding already extracted above of the Public Analyst would show that, it contained living and dead insects along with fragments of dead insects in abundance and about 1/4th of the sample contained larva inside the grains. Besides this, it also contained 36 per cent insect damaged grains against the maximum prescribed standard of 10 per cent. No doubt, the Public Analyst has not opined whether or not on account of these findings the article of food in question had become unfit for human consumption or had been rendered injurious to health but this is of no consequence and the court is not debarred from coming to its own conclusion on the basis of the findings recorded by the Public Analyst..................I have no doubt that these findings of the Public Analyst clearly make out a case that the article of food in question was not only insect infested but was also insect damaged to the extent of 36 per cent against the maximum prescribed standard of 10 per cent and was thus unfit for human consumption and also injurious to health ...... A Division Bench of this Court in Crl Revision No. 100 of 1983, Banarsi Dass v. The State of H.P., decided on August 8, 1986 (reported in 1987 Cri LJ 671), has held that the clauses (f) and (m) of section 2(i-a) are independent of each other and mutually exclusive and thus in case the article of food is found to be ,insect infested under clause (f) it would not have the benefit of the proviso to clause (m) and the article of food even if it be primary food must be held to be adulterated. Further as I have already observed, the law requires that even under clause (m) the deficiencies or variabilities beyond the prescribed standard should not render the article of food as injurious to health and in case the court comes to the conclusion that these factors have rendered the article of food, though primary food, as injurious to health, no benefit of the proviso to clause (m) of the Act can be extended to the accused and it would rather fall within the mischief of clause (1)."

3. The difference between clauses (f) and (m) may now be noticed. Section 2(i-a) defines adulterated and in the clauses (a) to (m) different situatio