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

1980 Supreme(Bom) 122

BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)
WAIKAR AND PALSHIKAR, JJ.
State of Maharashtra, Appellant
Versus
Zamandas Vansimal Paryan, Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 245 of 1977 and 30 of 1879
Decided on : 21 -4 -1980.

Advocates appeared:
V.V. Naik, Asst. Govt. Pleader, for Appellant in both the Appeals; N.R. Kanhe, for Respondent in both the Appeals.

The expression "store" in Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act means "storing for sale".

Headnote:

PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT - CHILLI POWDER AND BUNDI LADDU - ADULTERATED ARTICLES - SALE - STORAGE FOR SALE - INTERPRETATION - SECTION 7, 16(1)(A)(I), 20 - RULE 7(3), 17.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a hotel owner, was prosecuted for selling adulterated chilli powder and Bundi Laddu. The respondent claimed that the chilli powder was not for sale and the Bundi Laddu was prepared for a family function and not for sale.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the chilli powder was not stored for sale and the Food Inspector was not empowered to take a sample of the said stock. The court also held that the Bundi Laddus were stored for sale, but the respondent was acquitted as the prosecution failed to prove that the adulterated chilli powder was used in the finished products sold to the customers.

Issues: 1. Whether the chilli powder was stored for sale. 2. Whether the Bundi Laddus were stored for sale. 3. Whether the Food Inspector was empowered to take a sample of the chilli powder.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The expression "store" in Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act means "storing for sale". 2. Storing of an adulterated article of food for a purpose other than for sale would not constitute an offence under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act. 3. The Food Inspector is not empowered to take a sample of an article of food from a person who is not covered by any of the sub-clauses (1)(a) or Sub-Section (2) of Section 10 of the Act.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the acquittal of the respondent.

Judgement

WAIKAR, J.:- These appeals are preferred by the State against the acquittal of the respondent who is common. The respondent was prosecuted for selling adulterated articles namely chilli powder (In Criminal Case No. 6525/73 giving rise to Criminal Appeal No. 245 of 1977) and Bundi Ladu (in Criminal Case No. 6526 of 73) giving rise to Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1979. Both these cases were tried together, common evidence was recorded and both the cases were disposed of by common judgement by the learned Magistrate acquitting the respondent.

2. The respondent runs a hotel known as Azad Bharat Hindu Hotel, within the limits of Nagpur Municipal Corporation. On 27-6-1973, the Food Inspector visited this hotel and purchased 500 gms. of Bundi Laddu and 600 gms. of chilli powder from the respondent. The respondent sells, food products, which include Bhajie, Aluwada, Bundi Laddu, etc.. The quantity of Bundi Laddu and Chilli so purchased were sampled as per rules by the Food Inspector in the presence of the respondent and the witnesses. One portion of each sample was sent by him to the Public Analyst for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst showed that the chilli powder was adulterated as it did not conform to the standard and that in the Bundi Laddus non permitted coal tar colour i.e. metanil yellow was used for colouring. After obtaining the consent of the Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, the respondent came to be prosecuted separately for the offences punishable under S.7(1) read with Section 16(1)(A)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called "the Food Act").

3. The respondent pleaded that the chilli powder was not for sale. With regard to Bundi Laddu, he stated that they were prepared for the purpose of Sagayi ceremony which was to take place at his residence and they were also not for sale.

4. The defences put forth by the respondent found favour with the learned Magistrate, who acquitted him.

5. These two appeals came up for hearing before the learned single Judge (Tulpule J.). The learned Judge referred these appeals to this Bench, as in his opinion the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Laxmi Narain Tandon (AIR 1976 SC 621) : (1976 Cri LJ 547) was contrary to the view taken by the Single Judge of this Court (Jahagirdar J.) (in Criminal Appeal No. 870 of 1975 decided on 29-3-1977 and in Criminal Appeal No. 624 of 1975 decided on 15-4-1977 and by the other single Judge of this Court (Dighe J.) in Criminal Appeal No. 644 of 1976 decided on 26-6-1977). The other contentions which were raised by Shri Kanhe, the learned counsel for the respondent before the learned single Judge, were however, not considered by him.

6. So far as the sample of chilli powder is concerned the report of the Public Analyst shows that it did not conform to the standard, inasmuch as the total ash found was 9.3 per cent and as such it exceeded by 1.7 per cent. So also non volatile ethel extract found was 9.98 % and as such it was less by 2 per cent. So also the sample of Bundi Laddu showed that it contained non-permitted coaltar colour i.e. metanil yellow. In the opinion of the Public Analyst, therefore, both these articles were adulterated.

7. Shri Kanhe the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was non-compliance of R.7(3), so far as the chilli powder is concerned, the said Rule is in these terms :-

"After the analysis has been completed, he shall send to the person concerned, two copies of the report of the result of such analysis in Form III within a period of sixty days of the receipt of the sample.

8. Shri Kanhe further submitted that sample of chilli powder was received by the Public Analyst on 28-6-1973 and the report was despatched on 10-9-1973 i.e. after 74 days. He placed reliance upon the State of Maharashtra v. Chandanmal (197g (1) FAC 235) and the State Public Prosecutor v. Meenakshi Achi (1973 FAC 43) : (1972 Cri LJ 1684) (Mad), in support of his s


















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