Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R. K. Das, J.
THE STATE - Appellant
Versus
UMA CHARAN RAM - Respondent
Govt. Appeal 24 Of 1964
Decided On : OCTOBER 26, 1965
PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT - SECTION 2(V), 13, 16(A) - RULES 7, 18 - COCONUT OIL - ADULTERATION - SALE OF ADULTERATED COCONUT OIL - WHETHER AN OFFENCE - INTERPRETATION OF 'FOOD' - APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT TO ORISSA - COMPLIANCE WITH RULES 7 AND 18 - REPORT OF PUBLIC ANALYST - ADMISSIBILITY AND CONCLUSIVENESS.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a grocery shop owner, was charged with selling adulterated coconut oil under Section 16(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The defense argued that coconut oil is not used as food in Orissa and therefore the sale of adulterated coconut oil does not constitute an offense under the Act. The Magistrate acquitted the respondent based on this argument.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that coconut oil is considered food under the Act even if it is not commonly used as food in a particular region. The court relied on the fact that coconut oil is used as food in other parts of the country and that the Act is an All-India Act. The court also held that the report of the Public Analyst was admissible as evidence and that the accused had not challenged the report during the trial.
Issues: 1. Whether coconut oil is considered food under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, even if it is not commonly used as food in a particular region? 2. Whether the sale of adulterated coconut oil constitutes an offense under the Act? 3. Whether the report of the Public Analyst is admissible as evidence in a prosecution under the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of 'food' under Section 2(v) of the Act includes any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water. Coconut oil is used as food in other parts of the country and is therefore considered food under the Act, even if it is not commonly used as food in Orissa. 2. The sale of adulterated food is an offense under Section 16(a) of the Act. Coconut oil is considered food under the Act, and therefore the sale of adulterated coconut oil constitutes an offense. 3. The report of the Public Analyst is admissible as evidence under Section 13 of the Act. The accused did not challenge the report during the trial, and therefore the court accepted the report as evidence.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the respondent under Section 16(a) of the Act, sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 50 or undergo one month of rigorous imprisonment in default.
R. K. DAS, J.
( 1 ) THIS appeal by the State is directed against an order of the Sub-Divisional magistrate, Karanjia, dated 26-8-1964 acquitting the respondent of an offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
( 2 ) THE respondent Uma Charan Ram owns a grocery shop at Jashipur in the district of Mayurbhanj. On 9-2-63, the Food Inspector (P. W. 1) inspected his shop and purchased samples of some cocoanut oil for the purpose of analysis and despatched the same in the usual course for examination by the Public Analyst with a view to find out if the said oil was pure or adulterated. He received a report (Ex. 4) from the Public Analyst saying that the sample of cocoanut oil was found to be adulterated. On receipt of Ex. 4, P. W. 1 filed a complaint (Ex. 5), after obtaining necessary sanction from the District Health Officer. On the basis of the complaint, cognizance was taken and the accused was tried for an offence under section 16 (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act XXXVII of 1954) (hereinafter described as 'the Act' ).
( 3 ) THE accused admitted that he sold the sample of cocoanut oil to the Food inspector, PW. 1. His plea was that the cocoanut oil was not adulterated by him and it might have got adulterated due to the carelessness of the customers for which he was not responsible. His substantial plea, however, was that the cocoanut oil is not used as an article of food in the area where he was selling it and as such he was not liable to be prosecuted under the Act.
( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate found that the cocoanut oil sold by the respondent was adulterated, but relied upon the evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses who admitted that cocoanut oil is not used as an article of food in the area and held that since it was not an article of food in Orissa, the accused cannot be held guilty under Section 16 of the Act. He accordingly acquitted the accused. Hence this appeal by the State.
( 5 ) THE main question for consideration is whether cocoanut oil comes within the definition of 'food' as given in Section 2 (v) of the Act which defines 'food' to mean:
"any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes: (a) any article which ordinarily enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of human food,. . . . . . . . . "
Section 2 (1) says that an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard. Under Rule 5, framed under the Act the standard of various articles of food has been specified. In appendix B, item No. 17 cocoanut oil has been shown as one of the edible oils and its standard has been prescribed. The report of the Public analyst shows that it is below the standard and is thus adulterated. No doubt so far as Orissa is concerned, cocoanut oil is not generally used as an article of food or as a medium in the preparation of food, but undoubtedly it is so used in other parts of the country. The question, therefore is whether it can still be taken as an article of food in Orissa for the purpose of the Act even though it is not so used in Orissa. A similar question came up for consideration before a Full Bench of the Allahabad high Court in a case reported in AIR 1963 All 433 (FB), Municipal Board, Kanpur v. Janki Prasad. There the question was whether the sale of adulterated Linseed oil, which is not used as an edible article in Uttar Pradesh, amounts to an offence under Section 16 of the Act. Their Lordships held that the fact that Linseed oil is not used in Uttar Pradesh as a medium of food is immaterial because the Act is an All-India Act, and if linseed oil can be considered to be food in areas where it is used as cooking medium or for other food purposes, it would also be deemed to be a 'food' in Uttar Pradesh. Similarly when cocoanut oil is used as an article of food in some other parts of the country then it must also be deemed to be 'food'
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
