Back
1965 Supreme(Ori) 48
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R. K. Das, J.
FOOD INSPECTOR OF PURI MUNICIPALITY - Appellant
Versus
K. C. ANJANAYULU - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 111 Of 1964
Decided On : JUNE 23, 1965
B.Harichandan, H.KANUNGO, K.S.RAO, P.V.B.RAO, R.C.PATNAIK, R.N.MISRA
The purchase of samples by a Food Inspector under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act constitutes a 'sale' as defined in the Act, and the seller is liable for selling adulterated ghee under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Act. The mere notice of sale of adulterated food is not a sufficient defense, and it is not open to anyone to sell any article of food in an adulterated condition, even with notice of such adulteration to prospective buyers.
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT - SALE OF ADULTERATED GHEE - INTERPRETATION OF 'SALE' - FOOD INSPECTOR'S PURCHASE OF SAMPLES - WHETHER CONSTITUTES SALE - ADULTERATED GHEE MEANT FOR LIGHTING PURPOSES - WHETHER A VALID DEFENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was accused of selling adulterated ghee under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act). The Food Inspector, acting on information, raided the respondent's premises and seized various types of ghee, including S.G.S. Green label ghee, S.G.S. Red label ghee, prepared ghee, Prasad Banaspati ghee, and K.M.B. variety ghee. The Public Analyst found the S.G.S. Green label and S.G.S. Red label ghee to be grossly adulterated, as well as some samples of prepared ghee. The respondent claimed that the adulterated ghee was meant for lighting purposes and not for human consumption, as indicated by labels on the tins.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the purchase of samples by the Food Inspector constituted a 'sale' under the Act, as defined in Section 2 (XIII), and that the respondent was liable for selling adulterated ghee under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Act. The court rejected the respondent's defense that the ghee was meant for lighting purposes, holding that the mere notice of sale of adulterated food is not a sufficient defense and that it is not open to anyone to sell any article of food in an adulterated condition, even with notice of such adulteration to prospective buyers.
Issues: 1. Whether the purchase of samples by the Food Inspector constituted a 'sale' under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act? 2. Whether the respondent's claim that the adulterated ghee was meant for lighting purposes was a valid defense?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the purchase of samples by the Food Inspector constituted a 'sale' under the Act, as defined in Section 2 (XIII), and that the respondent was liable for selling adulterated ghee under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Act. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel v. State of Maharashtra, which held that obtaining samples under Section 10 of the Act would amount to a sale, as it is not a voluntary transaction but rather a compulsory acquisition in exercise of statutory power. 2. The court rejected the respondent's defense that the ghee was meant for lighting purposes, holding that the mere notice of sale of adulterated food is not a sufficient defense and that it is not open to anyone to sell any article of food in an adulterated condition, even with notice of such adulteration to prospective buyers. The court cited several authorities of different High Courts of India in support of this position.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and convicted the respondent under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Act. The respondent was sentenced to pay a fine of Rupees one thousand, in default to undergo R.I. for three years.
R. K. DAS, J.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Puri acquitting the respondent of an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (37 of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ).
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated thus : the respondent has his residence in Matimandapsahi and shop known as "jagannath Ghruta Bhandar" in Dolmandap Sahi in the town of Puri. He carries on the business of preparing ghee and selling the same at his residence and shop. On 26-1-61 the Food and Health Inspector P. W. 4 got some information that the respondent-accused was selling adulterated ghee for human consumption. Thereafter P. W. 4 along with P. W. 3 and some others raided the house of the accused and seized 141 tins of ghee of different varieties. Out of the said tins, nine tins were marked as S. G. S. red label ghee, 21 tins were marked as S. G. S green label ghee, 56 tins of 'prepared ghee, 49 tins were found as Prasad Banaspati ghee and seven tins as K. M. B. variety ghee. He also seized some empty tins and buckets containing ghee. Some other articles such as ghee flavouring essence, cauldrons, loose labels, one tin of Kum-kum ground nut oil, test tubes, two tins of til oil, ghee dust, Etna fruits, Sodibicarb, some acid, one pipe fitted drum and three big ovens and some iron materials used in the preparation of ghee were also seized. P. W. 4 after giving notice (Ext. 6) to the accused under Section 11 of the Act, purchased for analysis different varieties of ghee by way of samples on payment of the usual price to the accused amounting to Rs. 11. 19 as per receipt, Ext. 5. Thereafter he sealed the same into 27 sample bottles and separated them into three parts of nine bottles each and sealed them in the presence of the witnesses and the accused, as required under the rules. He then sent one set of sample of nine bottles to the public analyst, one set of bottles were given to the accused and the third set was kept by P. W. 4. The public analyst examined the samples and found the S. G. S. Green label and S. G. S. red label ghee to be grossly adulterated, the reports being Exts. 7 and 8 respectively. He also found some other samples of ghee to be grossly adulterated as would appear from his report exts. 9 and 9/1. He found some samples of ghee to be fit for human consumption which were returned to the accused in due course. In the present case we are concerned only with the adulterated ghee found unfit for human consumption as reported by the public analyst in his report Exts. 7, 8, 9 and 9/1.
( 3 ) THE accused was originally tried and convicted by a Magistrate and his conviction and sentence were upheld in appeal. On a revision preferred by the accused (Cri. Revn. No. 314 of 1962, reported in AIR 1963 Orissa 158) the High court set aside the conviction and sentence on the ground that the complaint was not duly filed in accordance with the requirements of Section 20 (1) of the Act. The High Court, however, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case observed that it was open to the Municipality of Puri at whose instance the prosecution was launched to start fresh proceedings according to law. Accordingly fresh proceedings were initiated after due compliance with the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the Act and the accused was retried.
( 4 ) THE accused took the plea that the ghee in question were not meant for human consumption and they were only meant for lighting purposes and it was so written on the labels of tins seized by P. W. 4.
( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate who tried the case found that the adulterated ghee seized from the accused was meant only for lighting purposes and that the accused was not selling the same for human consumption. He accordingly acquitted the accused. It is against this acquittal the complainant has preferred the appeal.
( 6 ) MR. Kanungo, learned Counsel for the respondent mainly
