1978 Supreme(Del) 74

High Court Of Delhi
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI - Appellant
Versus
J.B.BOTTLING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 33 of 1970
Decided On : 05/12/1978

The seizure of an article of food by a food inspector who is not duly appointed is unlawful and the entire prosecution case based on such seizure fails.

Headnote:

PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 - SEIZURE OF FOOD ARTICLE - PROCEDURE - FOOD INSPECTOR - DISQUALIFICATION - EFFECT ON SEIZURE - ADULTERATION - PROOF.

Fact of the Case:

A food inspector seized a bottle of carbonated water containing a dead fly. The company was prosecuted under sections 7 and 17 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The trial magistrate convicted the company, but the Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction on the ground that the company being an artificial person cannot be tried and punished for an offence for which the sentence of imprisonment is compulsory under section 16 of the Act. A division bench referred the question of immunity of the company from prosecution under the Act to a larger bench, which held that a company does not enjoy any immunity from prosecution and can be adequately punished with fine. The case was remanded back to the division bench for disposal. The company raised a new contention that the food inspector was not qualified to be appointed as he owned one share in a cooperative store of the Municipal Corporation. The division bench made a second referring order on the question whether holding of one or more share in the Municipal Corporation Cooperative Stores Ltd. amounted to having a financial interest in the manufacture, import or sale of articles of food within the meaning of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Act. A full bench held that the food inspector had a financial interest and that was a disqualification for appointment of a food inspector.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the seizure of the bottle of carbonated water by the food inspector was unlawful as he was not duly appointed. The court further held that the prosecution case was founded on the power of seizure of the food inspector and since the seizure was unlawful, the entire prosecution case failed. The court also held that the presence of the dead fly in the bottle may be an "indicia" or "presumptive test" of the article being unfit for human consumption, but "in each case it must be proved that the article was unfit for human consumption". There being no evidence at all in this case that the article was unfit for human consumption and, therefore, adulterated, the prosecution failed.

Issues: 1. Whether the seizure of the bottle of carbonated water by the food inspector was lawful. 2. Whether the company was immune from prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 3. Whether the food inspector had a financial interest which disqualified him from being appointed as a food inspector. 4. Whether the presence of the dead fly in the bottle was sufficient to prove that the article was unfit for human consumption.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the seizure of the bottle of carbonated water by the food inspector was unlawful as he was not duly appointed. The court relied on the provisions of section 10(4) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which empowers a food inspector to seize an article of food which appears to him adulterated or misbranded, and section 11(4) of the Act, which requires the food inspector to produce the seized article before a magistrate as soon as possible. 2. The court held that the company was not immune from prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The court relied on the decision of a larger bench of the court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. J. B. Bottling Company Private Limited, I. L. R. (1975) I Delhi 739, which held that a company does not enjoy any immunity from prosecution and can be adequately punished with fine. 3. The court held that the food inspector had a financial interest which disqualified him from being appointed as a food inspector. The court relied on the decision of a full bench of the court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. J. B. Bottling Company Pvt. Ltd. , ILR (1978) 1 Delhi 129, which held that the food inspector had a financial interest and that was a disqualification for appointment of a food inspector. 4. The court held that the presence of the dead fly in the bottle was not sufficient to prove that the article was unfit for human consumption. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo Mal, AIR 1976 SC 394, which held that "in each case it must be proved that the "article was unfit for human consumption".

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal.