STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DEVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Criminal Appeals by Special Leave are filed against a common judgment delivered on April 23, 1980 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Misc. Nos. 196, 198, 1565, 1567, 1569, 1571 and 1573-M of 1980.

(2.) By its judgment under appeal the High Court has quashed certain criminal proceedings instituted in different Magistrates' Courts against different parties for violation of Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Since the facts in all these cases are more or less the same, we shall briefly state the facts in one of them i. e. Criminal Misc. No. 196-M of 1980 on the file of the High Court filed by Daljit Vig, Works Manager, Kishan Chand and Co. Oil Industry Ltd., Manufacturers of Vanaspati at Ludhiana in which he had prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings which had been initiated by a complaint filed by the Government Food Inspector, District Faridkot. In that case the complainant alleged that when he visited the premises of Darshan Lal (Accused No. 1) on July 30, 1979, he found that Darshan Lal had in his possession for purposes of sale about twenty sealed tins each containing 16.5 K. G. of crown vanaspati and he demanded a sample of crown vanaspati by serving a notice on Darshan Lal in the form prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Thereafter he purchased 1.5 K. G. of crown vanaspati after opening a sealed tin for analysis by paying him Rs. 15/- The sample was divided into three equal parts and put into three dry and cleaned bottles which were labelled and duly closed and sealed. One of the bottles containing the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab in a sealed container, through a special messenger along with a memorandum (Form No. VII) containing the specimen of the seal and the remaining two bottles were. deposited with the Local Health Authority, Faridkot in accordance with the Rules. He also seized the entire stock of vanaspati under Section 10(4) of the Act. After the receipt of the Report of the Public Analyst dated August 24, 1979, he filed the complaint annexing the Report as an enclosure to it. The said Report stated that on analysis he (the Public Analyst) found that the sample sent to him did not contain sesame oil at all whereas vanaspati was required to contain not less than 5 per cent by weight of sesame oil. The three accused named in the complaint were Darshan Lal, the vendor, M/s. Hem Raj Pawan Kumar, the dealers and Kishan Chand and Co., Oil Industry Ltd., the manufacturers of the vanaspati contained in the aforementioned sealed tins. The complainant alleged that as the vanaspati in question did not satisfy the prescribed standard the accused were liable to be punished under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Act for having contravened the provisions of Section 7(i) of the Act. The names of witnesses including the name of the person in the presence of whom the sample had been taken were furnished in the complaint. When process was issued on the basis of the above complaint Daljit Vig, the Works Manager of the manufacturer of the vanaspati in question filed Criminal Misc. No. 196-M of 1980 on the file of the High Court. Criminal Misc. No. 198-M of 1980 was filed by Pawan Kumar of M/s. Hem Raj Pawan Kumar. In these two petitions they pleaded that the criminal proceedings initiated against them were liable to be quashed on various grounds. They contended, inter alia, that because the complainant had taken the sample of vanaspati after opening a sealed tin, he had violated Rule 22-A of the Rules and that because under Section 20-A of the Act dealer or a manufacturer could be proceeded against only after the vendor had set up a successful defence as contemplated under Section 19(2) of the Act, their prosecution along with the vendor was illegal. In the connected cases which were disposed of by the common judgment under appeal, the grounds were more or less the same. The High Court allowed all the petitions quashing all the criminal proceedings filed against the petitioners before it on the ground that where the food sold or stocked for sale or for distribution was in sealed containers having identical label declaration, the entire contents of one or more of such containers as may be required to satisfy the quantity prescribed in Rule 22 should be taken as a part of the sample in a sealed form and since the sealed container had been opened in each of these cases to draw the sample the prosecution was not tenable. In the instant case it may be recalled that each of the sealed containers contained 16.5 kg. of vanaspati and after opening one such sealed container the complainant had taken 1.5 kg. of vanaspati as sample. The method adopted by the complainant was found by the High Court to be contrary to the relevant Rules. These appeals by Special Leave are filed against the judgment and order of the High Court. It may be stated here that the High Court following its decision in these cases quashed the proceedings against Darshan Lal, the vendor of the vanaspati in question, in Criminal Misc. No. 2197-M of 1980 by its order dated June 17, 1980, against which a separate petition is filed before this Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2570 of 1980, which is also being disposed of today by a separate order.

(3.) Adulteration and misbranding of food stuffs are rampant evils in our country. The Act is brought into force to check these social evils in the larger public interest for ensuring public welfare. In certain cases the Act provides for imposition of penalty without proof of a guilty mind. This shows the degree of concerns exhibited by Parliament in so far as public health is concerned. While construing such food laws Court's should keep in view that the need for prevention of future injury is as important as punishing a wrong doer after the injury is actually inflicted. Merely because a person who has actually suffered in his health after consuming adulterated food would not be before Court in such cases, Courts should not be too eager to quash on slender grounds the prosecutions for offences, alleged to have been committed under the Act.