GEORGE ISSAC Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these cases, the petitioners are faced with a threat of prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for short 'the Act'. We will take O.P.No.2255/1994 as the leading case.

(2.) It is submitted that the petitioners are the manufacturers of 'Pickles in Oil'. They seek a declaration that the sub clause (m) of clause (ia) of S.2 of the Act as constitutional. They also challenge entry A. 16.16 in Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. They submit that compulsory imprisonment envisaged in terms of S.16 of the Act is unreasonable, and therefore, unconstitutional. Exts.P4 and P4(a) in O.P.No.2255/94 and similar communications produced in other cases are also under challenge. In these communications, the Food Inspector concerned has intimated them about the report by the Public Analyst, informing that they can make use of the provisions under the Act to get another sample of food article collected analysed, as prosecution is launched against them. Other incidental prayers are also sought for.

(3.) The challenge against sub clause (m) of clause (ia) of S.2 of the Act is on the ground that the quality or purity of the food article is not with reference to adulteration of food which shall always be to the prejudice of the consumer. Deterioration in quality or purity does not amount to adulteration as is evident from sub clause (a) of sub-s.(ia). So, sub cl.(m) including within the definition of Adulteration, any food stuffs below the quality or purity of the prescribed standards is unconstitutional, and it is arbitrary.