Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 541-542 OF 2014

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS.

4797-4798 OF 2011)

RUPAK KUMAR

…APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

…RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD,J.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order

whereby his prayer for quashing the order taking

cognizance under Section 16(1)(a) of the

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and issuing

process has been declined.

Short facts giving rise to the present

special leave petitions are that when the

Page 2

JUDGMENT

petitioner was posted as the Superintendent of

District Jail, Bihar Sharif, the Food Inspector

visited the jail premises and collected samples of

various materials including Haldi and Rice. Those

articles were stored for consumption of the

prisoners. The samples so collected were sent for

examination and analysis and, according to the

report of the Public Analyst, Haldi and Rice were

not found in conformity with the prescribed

standard and, therefore, held to be adulterated.

Accordingly, two separate prosecution reports were

submitted alleging commission of an offence under

Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration

Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took

cognizance of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)

of the Act and by order dated 18^th of March,

2006 directed for issuance of process in both the

cases. The petitioner assailed both the orders in

separate revision applications filed before the

Sessions Judge; but both were dismissed.

Thereafter, the petitioner preferred two separate

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

applications, being Criminal Miscellaneous No.

15527 of 2010 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 15471

of 2010 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure before the High Court. The High Court,

by the orders impugned in the present special

leave petitions, has dismissed both the criminal

miscellaneous applications. It is in these

circumstances the petitioner has filed the present

special leave petitions.

Leave granted.

Mr. Nagendra Rai, senior counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant raises a very short

point. He submits that the appellant at the

relevant time was the Superintendent of Jail and

food items which have been found to be adulterated

were not stored for sale but were meant for

consumption of the inmates. He submits that

according to the prosecution report, these food

items were not stored for sale and, therefore, the

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

allegations made do not come within the mischief

of Section 16(1)(a) of the Act.

We have bestowed our consideration to the

submission advanced and we find substance in the

same. Section 7 of the Act, inter alia, prohibits

manufacture and sale of certain articles of food,

the same reads as follows:

“Section

7.

Prohibitions

of

manufacture, sale, etc. of certain

articles of food. – 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 licence is

prescribed,

except

in

accordance with the conditions

of the licence;

(iv) any article of food the sale

of which is for the time being

prohibited

by

the

Food

(Health) Authority in the

interest of public health;

(v) any article of food in

contravention of any other

provision of this Act or of

any rule made thereunder; or

4

Page 5

JUDGMENT

(vi) any adulterant.

Explanation-For the purposes of

this section, a person shall be

deemed to store any adulterated

food or misbranded food or any

article of food referred to in

clause (iii) or clause (iv) or

clause (v) if he stores such food

for the manufacture therefrom