1. Sale of ghee found to be substandard based on Reichert value — Prosecution for sale of adulterated food under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 36
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B.Gajendragadkar, C.J.I., A.K.Sarkar, K.C.Das Gupta, K.N.Wanchoo, N.Rajagopala Ayyangar, JJ.
State Of U.P.
Versus
Kartar Singh
Case No. : 164 of 1962
Date of Decision : 2/6/64
Advocates Appeared: Chadha Harnam Singh : Lal C.P. : Rana O.P. : Singh Harbans
Advocates:
C.P.LAL, HARBANS SINGH, Harnam Singh, O.P.RANA
C.P.LAL, HARBANS SINGH, Harnam Singh, O.P.RANA
To challenge the validity of statutory rules under Article 14, the challenger must provide scientific evidence of unreasonableness or discrimination. Courts cannot discard rules framed by expert committees based on a priori reasoning or substitute their own standards for those prescribed by law.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 2, 7, 16, 23 - Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Rule 5 - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Adulteration of food - Standards of quality - Reichert Value - Challenge to validity of rules - Burden of proof - Presumption of validity of rules framed by expert committee - A priori reasoning insufficient to strike down rules - Court cannot substitute its own standards for those prescribed by law. (Paras 8, 14, 15, 16, 18)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Equality before law - Discrimination - To challenge the validity of a rule on grounds of unreasonableness or discrimination, the party must plead and prove the infirmity with cogent evidence - Presumption that relevant factors were considered by the competent authority, especially when rules are framed with assistance of experts. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
A vendor was prosecuted for selling ghee that failed to meet the minimum Reichert Value prescribed for the region. The vendor argued that the ghee originated from another region where the minimum standard was lower and further contended that the standards for the region were unreasonable. The High Court acquitted the vendor, holding that the regional classification was not rational and that the lowest standard prescribed for any area in the country should be applicable to all.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in striking down or redrafting the rules based on a priori reasoning. The standards were prescribed by the central government on the advice of an expert committee, creating a strong presumption of validity. No scientific evidence was led to prove that the classification was discriminatory or unreasonable.
Issues: Whether the regional standards for the Reichert Value of ghee were violative of Article 14 and whether the court could apply the lowest national standard to a vendor in a region with a higher prescribed standard.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proving that a rule is unreasonable or discriminatory under Article 14 lies with the party challenging it. In the absence of scientific evidence, a court cannot discard rules framed by a competent authority and an expert committee based on a priori reasoning. The court cannot practically legislate by substituting its own view of a reasonable standard for the one prescribed by the rules.
Result: Appeal allowed, acquittal set aside and conviction restored.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- constitutional law
- administrative law
-
practice and procedure
-
evidence
- burden of proof (Para 15)
-
evidence
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the validity of regional quality standards under Article 14 — Applicability of lower Reichert values prescribed for other regions or hilly areas. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 )
3. Standards prescribed by expert committees carry a strong presumption of validity; challenges based on Article 14 require scientific evidence rather than a priori reasoning. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. The burden lies on the party challenging the constitutionality of a statutory rule to plead and prove its infirmity with cogent and convincing evidence. (Para 15 , 18 )
5. Appeal allowed — Acquittal set aside and conviction restored — Imprisonment reduced to period already undergone and fine upheld. (Para 20 , 21 )
6. Who bears the burden of proof when challenging the validity of a statutory rule under Article 14?
The burden is on the party invoking the protection of Article 14 to plead and prove the infirmity by setting out the necessary facts and adducing cogent and convincing evidence to establish the rule's unreasonableness or discriminatory nature. (Para 15 )
7. What is the legal presumption regarding food quality standards formulated by an expert committee?
There is a strong, if not overwhelming, presumption that every relevant or material factor was taken into account in formulating the classification of zones and prescribing minimum standards when rules are framed with the assistance of a committee of experts. (Para 15 )
8. Can regional food quality standards be struck down based on a priori reasoning about geography?
No. Standards cannot be struck down based on a priori reasoning alone. To prove a rule is unreasonable or discriminatory, the party must provide materials by way of scientific analysis and evidence rather than relying on logical deductions about terrain or elevation. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
9. Can a court redraft statutory rules if it finds the prescribed standards to be too high?
No. A court cannot practically legislate or lay down what the rules should be. It must give effect to the law by adhering to the rules as framed by the competent authority, provided they have not been proven unconstitutional. (Para 18 , 19 )
N.R.AYYANGAR, J.
(1) THIS appeal which comes before us on a certificate of fitness granted by the High court of Allahabad under Art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution, is against a judgment of that court acquitting the respondent Kartar Singh of an offence under s. 7 read with s. 16 (1)(a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 which may be conveniently referred to as the Act.
(2) THE facts giving rise to the prosecution are briefly these: The respondent runs a shop at Haldwani and among the products sold by him is ghee. On 19/03/1960 a quantity of the ghee was purchased by the Food Inspector of the area and he put samples of the purchase into three phials which were sealed in the respondents presence. It may be mentioned that even in the seizure memo the Food Inspector noted the ghee purchased by him as `pahadi ghee`. One of the samples was forwarded to the Public Analyst to the government of Uttar Pradesh for analysis forascertaining whether the said ghee was adulterated.The analysis disclosed that in several respects the samplewas substandard and that in particular it had a ReichertValue of 22-5 as against the prescribed minimum of 28 for ghee in Uttar Pradesh. After setting out the details of the analysis, the Public Analyst expressed the opinion that the sample `contained a small proportion of vegetable fat or oil foreign to pure ghee`. On receipt of this report, the Medical Officer of Health, Haidwani sanctioned the prosecution of the respondent and a complaint was thereafter laid before the Magistrate 1st Class by the Food Inspector. The respondent pleaded not guilty and entered on his defence. Subsequently, the second sample was got analysed by the Director, central Food Laboratory, who reported that his analysis disclosed a Reichert Value of 21-7 as against 22-5 of the Public Analyst. The opinion expressed by him as regards the sample of ghee which he analysed was the same as that of the Public Analyst, viz., that the sample was adulterated.
(3) THE defence of the respondent who admitted that he had sold the ghee, samples of which were the subject of analysis, but denied it was adulterated, was two-fold: (1) He had obtained the ghee which he sold from Jodhpur, (2) The sample must be held not to be adulterated on the basis of the decision of the Allahabad High court in State v. Malik Ram(1).
(4) THE plea by the respondent regarding the ghee sold having come from Jodhpur was made because if this were established under the rules framed under the Act, to which we shall later refer, the minimum Reichert value prescribed for ghee in the Jodhpur area was 21 and that minimum requirement was satisfied by the sample analysed. The respondent led evidence to prove his purchase from Jodhpur but the learned Magistrate did not accept this case.
(5) THE other defence was a point of law relying on the decision of a division bench of the Allahabad High court reported as State v. Malik Ram(1). The learned Judges who decided that case drew a distinction between ghee obtained from Cattle in the hill districts of Uttar Pradesh and those from cattle in the plains. This decision was relied on by the respondent because the ghee sold by him was noted as pahadi ghee by the Food Inspector. The learned Judges held that notwithstanding the terms of the rules to which we shall later refer, ghee obtained from hilly areas of Uttar Pradesh like Kumaun hills, could not be held to be adulterated if its Reichert value was equal to that prescribed for Himachal Pradesh which was mostly a hilly area. They therefore held that though the rules under the Food Adulteration Act prescribed a minimum Reichert value of 28 for ghee for the entire State of Uttar Pradesh, still if ghee from hill areas of the Uttar Pradesh State reached a minimum of 26 Reichert value, such ghee would not be `adulterated ghee`. We shall consider the correctness of this decision after completing the narrative of the proceedings. The learned Magistra
