PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mukul Mudgal and Ajay Tewari JJ.
Mr.Pb Anandam, Managing Director, Jakhu Salt Co.(P) Ltd.
Versus
State Of Punjab
CRM-M No. 35297 of 1999,
CRM-M No. 900 of 2005,
Decided On : JUNE 30, 2010
Food Adulteration - Salt - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 2(v), Rule 43 - The court discussed the interpretation of the definition of food under Section 2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and its application to salt as a flavouring agent. The court also considered the provisions of Rule 43 and its applicability to the labeling of salt products.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a complaint against the seller and manufacturer of Bharat Iodized Salt regarding mislabeling and addition of anti-caking agent to the salt product.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the addition of anti-caking agent to the salt did not detract from the purity of the salt, and the labeling of the product as 'Bharat Salt Pure Free Flowing' did not violate the rules.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of the definition of food under Section 2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the applicability of Rule 43 to the labeling of salt products.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the wide definition of 'food' under Section 2(v) to include salt as a flavouring agent, and considered the provisions of Rule 43 in relation to the labeling of salt products.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application, quashed the proceedings, and found that no analysis of specific sections and rules of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was required to decide the case.
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. This order shall dispose of CRM-M No. 35297 of 1999 and CRM-M No. 900 of 2005 as they both arise out of a common complaint filed against the petitioners being the seller and manufacturer of Bharat Iodized Salt. Vide orders dated 6.1.2005, CRM-M No. 900 of 2005 filed by the manufacturer was ordered to be heard along with CRM-M No. 35297 of 1999.
2. This matter has been sent to the Division Bench by an order of reference dated 07.10.2004. The learned Singly Judge doubted the correctness of the view expressed by two learned Single Benches in Baldev Raj v. State of Punjab, 2002(3) RCR(Criminal) 483 and Amarjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(2) RCR(Criminal) 763. In these cases it was held that Salt was a flavouring agent covered by Rule 43(5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules) and not food and thus held not to attract the provisions of Rule 43 of the said rules. In case of Baldev Raj (supra) the label mentioned `Shudh Khadya Namak while in the second case the label was `Refined Iodized Salt Pure Free Following.
3. In this regard Section 2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,. 1954 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) which defines food would be necessary to be reproduced :-
"Section 2 "Food" means 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 of preparation of, human food,
(b) any flavouring matter or condiments, and
(c) any other article which the Central Government may, having regard to its use, nature, substance or quality, declared by notification in the official Gazette as food for the purposes of this Act;)
4. It would be seen in sub clause (b) of sub section (v) `flavouring matter and `condiments have been included in the definition of food.
Rule 43 of the Act reads as follows :-
"43. Notice of addition, admixture or deficiency in food - (1) Every advertisement and every price or trade list or label for an article of food which contains an addition, admixture or deficiency shall describe the food as containing such addition, admixture and shall also specify the nature and quantity of such addition, admixture or deficiency. No such advertisement or label attached to the container of the Food shall contain any words which might imply that the food is pure : Provided .....................................
(5) Nothing contained in the rule shall apply to the case of sweets, confectionery, biscuits, bakery products, processed fruits, aerated water, vegetables and flavouring agents."
In the two judgments of two Single Benches mentioned above it was held that salt would be `flavouring agent and `not food. The learned Single Judges did not consider the import of clause (b) of Section 2(v) wherein flavouring matter has been included in the definition of food and as mentioned above, held that salt was not food. In our opinion this cannot be the correct interpretation of the statutory provision. The word food has been defined in extremely wide terms. In State of T.N. v. R. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 538 the Honble Supreme Court held as follows :-
"5. According to the definition of `food which we have extracted above, for the purposes of the Act, any article used food or drink for human consumption and any article which ordinarily enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of human food is `food. It is not necessary that it is intended for human consumption or for preparation of human food. If is notorious that there are, unfortunately, in out vast country, large segments of population, who, living as they do, far beneath ordinary subsistence level, are ready to consume that which may otherwise be though as not fit for human consumption. In order to keep body and soul together, they are often tempted to buy and use as food, articles which are adultered and even unfit for human consumption but
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.