KAILASH PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) ONE Narain Das was found in possession of some tins of adulterated Ghee. He was prosecuted under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He pleaded in defence that the Ghee was not kept for sale by him, but was with him only as security for the money which he had advanced to a Hathras firm styled Basant Lal Hukam Chand. The learned Magistrate, who tried the case did not accept the defence and convicted Narain Das under Section 16 (1) (a) of the act and sentenced him to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. His conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal by the Temporary Sessions Judge of Mathura. Narain Das came in revision to this Court. The revision was heard by a learned Single Judge. He accepted the plea of the accused that the Ghee which was stored by him was not for sale but was kept with him as security for money which he had advanced.

( 2 ) THE question, therefore, arose whether Narain Das can be held guilty of an offence under section 16 of the Prevention of Adulteration Act if the storing of the Ghee by him was not for sale but was merely for security.

( 3 ) CERTAIN cases were cited before the learned Single Judge bearing upon the question. A decision of this Court in Sunder Lal v. State, Criminal Revn. No. 1052 of 1958 which was decided on 19th August, 1959 and which is not a reported case, is to the effect that storage of adulterated articles was punishable regardless of the purpose for which the articles were stored. In food Inspector v. Punsi Desai, 1959 Cri LJ 712 : (AIR 1959 Kerala 190) and in re V. Govinda Rao, 1960 Cri LJ 886: (AIR 1960 Andh Pra 366) it was held that it is only storage for sale that is prohibited under the Act. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the decision of this Court in Criminal Revn. No. 1052 of 1958 (Supra) required reconsideration. He, therefore, referred the following question for decision by a larger Bench: whether an offence under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention, of Food Adulteration Act is committed by a person who storey adulterated food for some purpose other than sale.

( 4 ) WE have therefore to answer that question.

( 5 ) SECTION 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act prohibits storing of adulterated food and it is punishable as an offence under Section 16 (1) (a ). Section 7 of the Act reads no person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute:-

(i) any adulterated food; (ii) any misbranded food; (iii) any article of food for the sale of which a licenses is prescribed, except in accordance with the conditions of the license; (iv) any article of food the sale of which is for the time being prohibited by the Food (Health)Authority with a view to preventing the outbreak or spread of infectious diseases; or, (v) any article of food in contravention of any other provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder.

the relevant portion of Section 16 runs" (1) If any person (a) whether by himself or by any person on his behalf imports into India or manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distributes, any article of food in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder. . . . . . . . . . he shall, in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of Section 6, be punishable. . . . . . . . . . "

( 6 ) THE definition of adulterated as given in Section 2 of the Act is very comprehensive. Under this definition an article may be adulterated even though it is not injurious to health. Mixtures commonly made of different articles of food for domestic use would come within the definition of the term adulterated. Milk diluted with water for purposes of feeding infants and patients would also come within the definition of adulterated. The verb store is a word of general import. It means to keep or lay up for future use. If a mother keeps milk diluted with water for feeding her infant child or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document