Back
1964 Supreme(Ker) 197
Judges : ANNA CHANDY
FOOD INSPECTOR, TRICHUR MUNICIPALITY - Appellant
Versus
PAUL - Respondent
Case No : Cr. A. No. 349 of 1963
Decided On : 08/14/1964
Advocates Appeared :
V. Balakrishna Eradi; For Appellant S. Easwara Iyer; L. Gopalakrishnan Potti; For Respondent State Prosecutor; For State
The court applied principles of statutory interpretation to reconcile conflicting provisions of the Act and the rules, emphasizing the need to avoid absurdity and give effect to the intended remedy of the statute.
Headnote:
Adulterated Jam Roll - Food Adulteration - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.7(1), S.16(1)(a), R.23, R.28, R.29, R.30 - The court discussed the interpretation of S.2(1)(j) of the Act and its inconsistency with the rules regarding the addition of non-permitted colouring matter to food. The court applied principles of statutory interpretation to reconcile the provisions and held that the word 'and' in S.2(1)(j) should be read as 'or' to avoid absurdity. The accused was convicted under S.7(1) read with S.16(1)(a) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-.
Fact of the Case:
The Food Inspector filed a complaint against the respondent for selling adulterated jam roll. The sample purchased was found to contain a non-permitted coal-tar dye, leading to the prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The court discussed the validity of the sanction, the report of the Analyst, and the interpretation of S.2(1)(j) of the Act. The acquittal was overturned, and the accused was convicted under S.7(1) read with S.16(1)(a).
Issues: Validity of the sanction, acceptability of the Analyst's report, interpretation of S.2(1)(j) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied principles of statutory interpretation to reconcile the provisions of the Act and the rules, holding that the word 'and' in S.2(1)(j) should be read as 'or' to avoid absurdity.
Final Decision: The order of acquittal was set aside, and the accused was convicted under S.7(1) read with S.16(1)(a) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-.
1. The appellant is the Food Inspector of the Trichur Municipality. He had filed a complaint before the District Magistrate, Trichur against the respondent for having sold adulterated jam roll an offence punishable under S.7 (1) read with S.16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The prosecution case was that on 4 31963 pw.1 the Food Inspector purchased jam rolls kept for sale in the Star Bakery owned by the first accused and run by his son the second accused. The article of food purchased was duly sampled by pw.1 in the presence of two witnesses one of whom is the employee of the bakery itself. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and the analyst in his certificate reported that the sample contains a non-permitted coal-tar dye and was therefore adulterated.
2. The Food Inspector who purchased the jam roll gave evidence in support of the case. His evidence remains practically unchallenged. When the accused were questioned about the evidence the first accused stated that he used only the permitted dyes and the second accused merely denied the charge.
3. Several untenable contentions were made regarding the validity of the sanction and the validity of the action taken by pw.1 under S.10 (7) all of which were rightly over-ruled by the learned District Magistrate and the correctness of the findings is not challenged before me.
4. The only objection which found favour with the learned Magistrate and which led to the acquittal is that the report of the Analyst is vague and unacceptable in so far as it did not show that the unpermitted coal-tar dye added to the article of food was beyond the prescribed limits and as such the article of food could not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of S.2 (1) 0) of the Act.
5. It is the correctness of this finding that is challenged before me. S.2 (1) 0) reads that an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated
"If any colouring matter other than that prescribed in respect thereof and in amounts not within the prescribed limits of variability is present in the article."
Part V of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules deals with colouring matter. R.23 prohibits the addition of colouring matter to any article of food except as specifically permitted by the rules in that chapter and R.28 specifies the coaltar dyes which may be used. R.29 prohibits even the use of permitted coaltar dyes in or upon any food other than those enumerated and R.30 prescribes that the maximum limit of the permitted coaltar colours which may be added to any food shall not exceed (0.2 grams per kilogram) of the final food or beverage for consumption.
6. The report of the Public Analyst shows that two types of coaltar dyes were used in the preparation of the jam roll one of which was Tattrazine a yellow permitted coaltar dye and the other Rhodamine 'B' a rose basic coaltar dye which is not of the permitted categories.
7. As a non-permitted variety of coaltar dye was found used in the preparation of the jam roll no question of the exact amount which was used will arise. However the learned District Magistrate gave a literal interpretation to S.2 (1) (j) and held that the accused could be found guilty of the charge only if any colouring matter other than that prescribed in respect thereof and in amounts not within the prescribed limits of variability is present in the article. Going a step further the learned Magistrate held that S.2 (1) (j) was inconsistent with R.23 and was meaningless since no limits could be prescribed or need be prescribed in regard to the addition of a non-permitted colouring matter when and in so far as R.23 envisages a total prohibition of the same.
8. The learned Magistrate seems to have been unmindful of the recognised principles of interpretation of statutes when he came to the above conclusion. His arguments, to borrow the words of S. R. Das, C. J., in State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala, AIR. 1957 S.C. 699, "hang on the frail peg of unsk
