1965 Supreme(Cal) 207

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. Mukharji
GOPALPUR TEA CO. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 119  Of  1963
Decided On : AUGUST 23, 1965

The court held that the presence of crude fibre up to a certain point is made permissible on the ground that it is natural to find such crude fibres in tea and even good quality of tea would naturally contain some percentage of stalks and that is why even 15 per cent was allowed as a limit under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954.

Headnote:

PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT - [SECTION 7 (1) READ WITH SECTION 16 (1) (A) (I)] - ADULTERATED TEA - CONVICTION - APPEAL - ISSUES - (1) WHETHER NON-EXAMINATION OF SANKAR MISRA VITIATES THE SEARCH AND CAUSES PREJUDICE TO THE APPELLANT? (2) WHETHER THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE WAS WRONG TO INFER THE PRESENCE OF SANKAR MISRA FROM THE LIST OF SEIZURE WHERE HIS NAME APPEARS WHEN NOBODY PROVES SANKAR MISRA'S SIGNATURE? (3) WHETHER THE CONVICTION IS BAD BECAUSE THE FOOD INSPECTOR COMMITTED BREACH OF SECTION 11 (1) (A) OF THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT? (4) WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A BREACH OF SECTION 11 (4) OF THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954? (5) WHETHER THE PUBLIC ANALYST HIMSELF WAS NOT EXAMINED AND CALLED AT THE TRIAL? (6) WHETHER THE SAMPLE TAKEN WAS NOT REALLY A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE? (7) WHETHER THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS TEA WAS FOR SALE AND THEREFORE, THERE COULD BE NO CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE ACT?

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Gopalpur Tea Co. Ltd., was convicted under Section 7 (1) read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling adulterated tea. The prosecution case was that on 15th March 1960, a Food Inspector took samples from two bags of tea sent by Gopalpur Tea Co. Ltd. and sent one of the samples of each to the Public Analyst for analysis. One of the samples was found to be adulterated in so far as it contained crude fibre upto 16. 58 per cent which was in excess of the permissible limit of 15 per cent under Rule A14 (f) read with Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 defining the standards of quality of various articles of food specified in appendix B to those rules.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Food Inspector had observed all the legal formalities and had taken the samples in the presence of two witnesses. The Public Analyst's report showed that the sample of tea did not conform to the specification in respect of crude fibre and was therefore adulterated within the meaning of the Act and the rules made thereunder. The court also found that the appellant was responsible for the adulterated tea as it had sent the consignment to Calcutta and was the company which was responsible for the article.

Issues: 1. Whether non-examination of Sankar Misra vitiates the search and causes prejudice to the appellant? 2. Whether the learned Magistrate was wrong to infer the presence of Sankar Misra from the list of seizure where his name appears when nobody proves Sankar Misra's signature? 3. Whether the conviction is bad because the Food Inspector committed breach of Section 11 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act? 4. Whether there has been a breach of Section 11 (4) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954? 5. Whether the Public Analyst himself was not examined and called at the trial? 6. Whether the sample taken was not really a representative sample? 7. Whether there is no evidence that this tea was for sale and therefore, there could be no conviction under Section 7 of the Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the non-examination of Sankar Misra did not vitiate the search or cause prejudice to the appellant as the Food Inspector had called Sankar Misra and Sankar Misra had subscribed his signature. The court also held that the learned Magistrate was not wrong to infer the presence of Sankar Misra from the list of seizure where his name appears as there was no breach in law of Section 10 (7) of the Act. 2. The court held that the conviction was not bad because the Food Inspector did not commit breach of Section 11 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as he had given notice in writing to the consignee of the tea, the House of Commerce. 3. The court held that there was no breach of Section 11 (4) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as the tea was not seized and carried away by the Food Inspector but was left in the custody of the vendor. 4. The court held that the Public Analyst himself was not required to be examined and called at the trial as the report of the Public Analyst is evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceeding under the Act. 5. The court held that the sample taken was a representative sample as each bag of tea was separately packed, marked and tagged and the contents of all the bags need not be mixed up together before taking a sample. 6. The court held that there was evidence that the tea was for sale as the appellant's agent had written letters to the Chief Health Officer of the Corporation of Calcutta requesting for release of the tea for sale.

Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of Gopalpur Tea Co. Ltd. represented by its Secretary S. Sarvadyaksha under Section 7 (1)/16 (a) (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and dismissed the appeal with the modification of reducing the sentence of Gopalpur Tea Co. Ltd. to a fine of Rs. 1000 (Rupees one thousand ).