Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 407 (PNJ)

Ram Lal v. State of Punjab

2003-03-11

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

body2003
ORDER Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - A complaint has been filed alleging that sample of chewing tobacco taken from the petitioner was found to be adulterated in view of the report of the Public Analyst that it contained 6.09% of sand and silica which was more than the normal value and thereby the petitioner committed offence under Section 7(2) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since no standard has been prescribed for chewing tobacco, assumption that contents of sand and silica were "more than the normal value" is untenable and on that basis, prosecution cannot be launched. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that even where no standard is prescribed and some adulteration is found or article of food sold is found to be not of nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser or the article affects injuriously nature, substance or quality or for at matter falls under any of the clauses of Section 2(i-a), the article, can be held to be adulterated for which prosecution can be launched. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. No doubt, in M.V. Krishnan Nambissam v. State of Kerala, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1676, it was observed that wherever rule making authority intended to prescribe a specific standard for the contents of a product, it has been so provided. It was held that standard of milk could not be applied to the standard of butter-milk. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of this observation, it must be held that only those articles of food can be held to be adulterated for which standard is prescribed and for any article of food for which no standard is prescribed, no prosecution was maintainable under the law. 5. This contention cannot be accepted. Punishment provided under Section 7 includes punishment for sale of any adulterated food. 5. This contention cannot be accepted. Punishment provided under Section 7 includes punishment for sale of any adulterated food. Adulterated is defined under Section 2(i-a) to mean an article of food mentioned in clauses (a) to (m) which are reproduced as under :- "(a) if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice, or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be; (b) if the article contains any other substance which affects, or if the article is so processed as to affect, injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof; (c) if any inferior or cheaper substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article so as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof; (d) if any constituent of the article has been wholly or in part abstracted so as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof; (e) if the article had been prepared, packed or kept under insanitary conditions whereby it has become contaminated or injurious to health; (f) if the article consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect- infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption; (g) if the article is obtained from a diseased animal; (h) if the article contains any poisonous or other ingredient which renders it injurious to health; (i) if the container of the article is composed, whether wholly or in part, of any poisonous or deleterious substance which renders its contents injurious to health; (j) if any colouring matter other than that prescribed in respect thereof is present in the article, or if the amounts of the prescribed colouring matter which is present in the article are not within the prescribed limits of variability; (k) if the article contains any prohibited preservative or permitted preservative in excess of the proscribed limits; (l) 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, which renders it injurious to health; (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 agency, then, such article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this sub-clause. Explanation - Where two or more articles of primary food are mixed together and the resultant article of food - (a) is stored, sold or distributed under a name which denotes the ingredients thereof; and (b) is not injurious to health, then, such resultant article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this clause;" 6. A reference to the above provisions shows that only sub-clause (1) talks of a prescribed standard. Other sub-clauses are attracted independent of standard having been laid down. 7. In M.V. Krishnan (supra), towards the end of para 5, the Apex Court clearly stated "we should not be understood to have expressed any view on the question whether a prosecution could be launched for adulteration of butter-milk under some other clauses of the definition of "adulterated" in Section 2 of the Act........" 8. In Krishna Rajaram Wani v. M.V. Koranne and the State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 Bombay 247, which was a case falling under clause (f), contention that in absence of standards being laid down, prosecution was not maintainable, was rejected. Reference is also made to the judgment of this court in Sandeep Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1997(2) All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 218 . 9. For the above reasons, contention that there is a threshold bar to prosecution for adulteration of an article of food for which no standard was laid down, cannot be accepted. The parties will have opportunity to show before the trial Court whether in the present case, article of food can be held to be adulterated having regard to the provisions of Section 2(i-a) which question need not be examined for the purpose of this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.