R M KALIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Public Analyst examined a sample of 'Flavoured Cornflour' as Cornflour simplicitor. This was because the Food inspector did not send the printed colour cartons with the food stuff. The result was, the public analyst declared the sample adulterated as it was found to be containing colour, flavour and common salt which a sample of cornflour under Rule A. 18.08 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was not expected to contain. The result was a complaint under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and conviction. The petitioner No. 1, Mr. R.M. Kalia, was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to the payment of fine of Rs. 5000.00 in default of payment of which, he was required to undergo further 6 months rigorous imprisonment, while the petitioner No. 2, firm M/s. Weikfield Products Company, was fined a sum of Rs. 20,000.00 . This was reduced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment, and in default of payment of fine to 3 months rigorous imprisonment in appeal. The other two persons, one Mr. B.R. Malhotra and Shri H.R. Malhotra Managing Director and Production Director respectively were acquitted as the prosecution had failed to place on record the constitution of the firm and the position held by these two accused. Aggrieved of this order, the Petitioner has come in revision.

(2.) It will be noticed that the Public Analyst, who was examined as D.W. 4, Mr. P.P. Bhatnagar, stated in cross-examination that he had examined the sample according to the standard laid down in rules for Cornflour at A. 18.08 which prescribes that Cornflour should contain no colour, flavour or other chemicals. He has however made two prominent and significant admissions, which are-(a) that no standard has been prescribed by rules for Flavoured Cornflour, and (b) that he would not have declared the sample adulterated if the cartons had come to him along with the sample. The reason given by him is that the ingredients are printed on cartons and the sample was found by him containing the same ingredients. A look at the carton cover which was withheld from the Public Analyst shows that the food stuff contained the following ingredients, namely cornflour salt flavouring and colouring 175 gins. net and the directions given are as follows.

(3.) The Trial Court held "had it been Blancmange or custard powder the position could have been quite different." Mr. Frank Anthony urged that Blancmange is a house-hold name for Flavoured Cornflour not only in Europe but also in leading hotels and resaurants in India and there is no justification to declare the sample as adulterated as it conformed to the ingredients printed on the cartons which were withheld from the Public Analyst who in fact examined the sample according to the standard prescribed for sample of Cornflour and this was done despite the fact that sample was represented as 'Flavoured Cornflour' and no standard has been prescribed by Rules for Flavoured Cornflour. Mr. Anthony also submitted that the words 'Flavoured Cornflour' are not the words coined by the petitioner. He has made a reference to the Government of India Import Policy at page 189 to urge his point that the Government has recognised 'Flavoured Cornflour' as an article of food different than the simple 'Cornflour'. His contention is that once it is found that Flavoured Cornflour is an article of food different than simple Corrflour, it cannot be judged by the standard prescribed for Cornflour in the same manner in which the standard prescribed for simple milk cannot be applied to Flavoured Milk, even though the main ingredient of Flavoured Milk is also milk. Mr. Anthony submitted that previously no standard was prescribed for Flavoured Milk and once this article of food became prominent, Rule A.11.01.05 came to be added and that similar action can be taken by the Legislature in respect of Flavoured Cornflour. Mr. Anthony claims that in fact the ingredients of Flavoured Cornflour are the same as that of custard powder and that it has been the consistent stand of the petitioner. He submitted that if the custard powder is not adulterated stuff, how than could Flavoured Cornflour be adulterated, particularly, when its ingredients are similar to the one of custard powder. Mr. Frank Anthony made many more submissions about this article of food (Flavoured Cornflour) being of international fame and being supplied to army and approved by ISI etc., but for purposes of point in controversy in this case, it is not necessary for me to discuss the same.