Back
1977 Supreme(Ker) 273
Judges : S.K.KADER
STATE OF KERALA - Appellant
Versus
SUBRAMONIAN - Respondent
Case No : Crl. A. No. 108 of 1977
Decided On : 12/02/1977
Advocates Appeared :
Public Prosecutor; For Appellant P. Sukumaran Nayar; A. K. Chinnan; For Respondent
Proof of unfitness for human consumption is an essential ingredient of the definition under S.2(i)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
Headnote:
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Appeal against Acquittal - S.7, S.10(1)(a)(i), S.13, S.2(i)(f) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the standard prescribed for cumin seeds under the Act, the interpretation of S.2(i)(f) regarding the unfitness for human consumption, and the requirement of proof of unfitness for human consumption as an essential ingredient of the definition. The court also highlighted the presumptive criteria for the quality of the article and the necessity to prove the article's unfitness for human consumption.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was acquitted of selling adulterated cumin seeds. The State appealed the acquittal, arguing that the sample was adulterated under S.2(i)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that although the reasoning for the acquittal was wrong, the appeal failed as there was no evidence that the cumin seeds were adulterated under S.2(i)(f) of the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the cumin seeds sold by the accused were adulterated within the meaning of S.2(i)(f) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of proof of unfitness for human consumption as an essential ingredient of the definition under S.2(i)(f) and highlighted the presumptive criteria for the quality of the article.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was sustained due to the absence of evidence that the sample was adulterated under S.2(i)(f) of the Act.
1. This is an appeal filed by the State against an order of acquittal in a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act).
2. The respondent, the accused in the case was tried by the Sub Divisional (Judicial) Magistrate, Neyyattinkara, for an offence punishable under S.7 read with S.10(1)(a)(i) of the Act on the allegation that on January 22,1976 at 215 p. m. he sold to the Food Inspector (Pw.1) 450 grams of cumin seeds out of a larger quantity kept in his shop for sale and the same was, on analysis, found to be adulterated. As per Ex. P5, the report of the Public Analyst, the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for cumin seed and was therefore adulterated. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him. In the course of the trial the sample given to the accused by the Food Inspector was sent through court for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. Ex. Dl is the certificate issued by the Director of the
Central Food Laboratory. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate holding that there was conflict and variation between Ex. P5 and Ex.D1, acquitted the accused.
3. Attacking this order of acquittal, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the reasoning given by the trial court for the acquittal is palpably wrong and unsustainable in law and on the facts, that as per Ex. D1 which has superseded Ex. P5, the sample was adulterated under S.2(i)(f) of the Act and that therefore the order of acquittal has to be set aside and the respondent be convicted for the offence with which he was charged.
4. Sri P. Sukumaran Nair, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that even if the reasoning given by the trial court is wrong the order of acquittal is correct and sustainable as there are other valid grounds to support it.
5. It has been sufficiently proved in the case that the accused sold cumin seeds to pw.1 in the manner and under the circumstances alleged. There is the evidence of pw.1, the Food Inspector in support of this, corroborated by the evidence of pw. 3, peon attached to pw.1's office, Ext. P1 the notice issued to the respondent in Form VI, Ex. P2 the receipt issued by the respondent acknowledging the receipt of the price of the article purchased by pw.1 and Ex. P5 the mahazar prepared on the spot.
6. The following is the standard prescribed for cumin seeds under the Rules framed under the Act. (Item A.05.09):
"The proportion of extraneous matter including dust, dirt, stones, lumps of earth, chaff, stem or straw shall not exceed 7.0 per cent by weight. The proportion of edible seeds other than cumin seeds snail not exceed 5.0 per cent by weight."
Ex. P5, the report of the Public Analyst, states that the sample contained 10.5% extraneous seeds by weight and 5.6% extraneous matter including dust, stones, lumps of earth, chaff, stem or straw by weight and therefore the sample did not conform to the standard and was adulterated. Under sub-section (3) of S.13 of the Act
"The certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under sub-section (2) shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst under sub-section (1) "and under sub-section (5)
"Any document purporting to be a report signed by a Public Analyst, unless it has been superseded under sub-section (3) or any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceeding under this Act or under S.272 to 278 of the Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860)."
Ex. D1 is the certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under sub-section (2) of S.13. By virtue of the proviso to sub-section (5) of S.13
"any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein".
It was certified by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory that, alth
