Back
1991 Supreme(MP) 424
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
T. N. SINGH
HARIRAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondents
Criminal Revision 121 Of 1986
Decided On : 09/24/1991
K.S.Shrivastava, R.A.RAMAN
Milk is not a primary food within the meaning of Section 2(1A)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 - SECTION 2(1A)(M), 10(2), 19(1) - MILK - PRIMARY FOOD - JURISDICTION OF FOOD INSPECTOR - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - DICTIONARY MEANING - HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION - RULES FRAMED UNDER THE ACT - FOOD INSPECTOR'S QUALIFICATIONS - APPOINTMENT - PROOF - EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY - SENTENCE - MINIMUM SENTENCE - INTERFERENCE BY COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling adulterated goat milk. He appealed unsuccessfully and challenged the verdict in revision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that milk is not a primary food within the meaning of Section 2(1A)(m) of the Act and that the Food Inspector had jurisdiction to take a sample of the milk and launch prosecution. The Court also held that the petitioner's defense was not barred by Section 19(1) of the Act and that the plea was relatable to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 10.
Issues: 1. Whether milk is a primary food within the meaning of Section 2(1A)(m) of the Act? 2. Whether the Food Inspector had jurisdiction to take a sample of the milk and launch prosecution? 3. Whether the petitioner's defense was barred by Section 19(1) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that milk is not a primary food within the meaning of Section 2(1A)(m) of the Act because it is not a produce of agriculture or horticulture in its natural form. The Court relied on the definition of primary food in Section 2(1A)(m) and the prescribed standard for milk in Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 2. The Court held that the Food Inspector had jurisdiction to take a sample of the milk and launch prosecution because he was duly appointed as a Food Inspector under Section 9 of the Act and had the prescribed qualifications under Rule 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 3. The Court held that the petitioner's defense was not barred by Section 19(1) of the Act because the defense was relatable to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act, which provides that no sample of any article of food, being primary food, shall be taken under sub-section (2) if it is not intended for sale as such food.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition and upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.
( 1 ) FOR selling adulterated goatmilk, the petitioner suffered conviction u/s. 7 (1) read with S. 16 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for short, the 'act', and a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment besides fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. He appealed unsuccessfully and is now in this Court challenging the verdict in this revision. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION's case, shortly put, is that on 20-10-1983, at about 7-00 a. m. , the petitioner was found carrying on a bicycle in a can, about 8 litres of goat-milk which he had brought for sale in Guna town. He was accosted by the Food Inspector, P. W. 1 at Choudhari Mohalla near Jain temple in Guna town and sample was taken of the milk in presence of witnesses, P. W. 2, Bhanupratapsingh and P. W. 3, Shivarm. A Panchanama was prepared, proved as Ex. P/6, but other contemporaneous documents executed and proved as Exs. P/4 and P/5 are the statutory notice contemplated under form VI and the receipt of the sale-price paid to the accused/petitioner for the milk purchased from him for sample. On receipt of repost from the Public Analyst, Ex. P/12 (dated 2-12-1983), prosecution was launched vide complaint dated 12-1-1984, lodged by the Food Inspector, Tripathi (P. W. 1 ). With regard to his competence to take sample and launch prosecution, P. W. 1 proved State Government orders dated 14-8-1972 (Ex. P1) and 31-12-1959 (Ex. P/3) as also an order of the Local (Health) Authority, Guna (Ex. P/2) dated 16-9-1983.
( 3 ) DURING the course of trial, as earlier alluded, prosecution examined three witnesses and also proved several documents including those specified above. The accused / petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and put up his specific defence that the milk of which simple was taken from him forcibly was not meant for sale and he had not sold any milk to the Food Inspector. He had come on a visit to in-laws where his mother-in-law gave him in a Lota 2 Kgs. of milk, to be given to her other son-in-law, Lalaram, for use in purpose of Mundan cetemony.
( 4 ) TWO legal contentions, Shri Shrivastava has forcefully pressed before me to which I have given my earnest consideration. According to him, the defence pleaded is not barred by Section 19 (1) of the Act and that the plea is rather relatable to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 10. In other words, according to learned counsel, milk was a "primary Food" and if that was not intended for sale, the Food Inspector had no jurisdiction to take sample of that milk and to launch prosecution on the basis thereof. Counsel cited Narayan Ch. Saha v. State of Assam, 1986 Cri LJ 1169, in support of that contention. The other contention similarly impinges in another way on the jurisdiction of the Food Inspector, Tripathi, to launch the prosecution. By referring to Ex. P/2, he submitted that Local (Health) Authority had no legal competence to make appointment contemplated of the Food Inspector Tripathi along with others as members of a Flying Squad and fixing their joint jurisdiction thereunder. Counsel relied on A. K. Roy v. State of Punjab, AIR 1986 SC 2160, in support of that contention.
( 5 ) IN so far as counsel's first contention is concerned, let the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder, extracted below be noticed :-"2. Definitions.- In this Act unless the context otherwise requires, - ** ** (ia) "adulterated" - an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated - ** ** (m) if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability but which does not render it injurious to health : provided that, where the quality or purity of the article, being primary food, has fallen below the prescribed standards or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability, in either case, solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agen
