PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. GANAPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Criminal appeals have been posted together in a batch as they raise common questions of fact and law, arising under the Prevention of Food adulteration Act of 1954 (Central ). The respondents in all these cases were prosecuted for an offence under S. 2 (i) (a) and (1) read with S. 7 (1) and 16 (i) and appendix B to the rules, Rule A-04 under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground that they were found in possession of adulterated compounded asafoetida for sale. The main facts of the case are not in controversy, and the only point that arises for determination is the basis for determining whether there is an infringement of the rules and whether there is adulteration of compounded asafoetida within the meaning of the Act. As regards asafoetida and compounded asafoetida, rule A-04 of appendix B provides what is called the minimum alcoholic extract of the contents of the asafoetida. In the case of asafoetida, the alcoholic extract should be not less than 25 per cent and in the case of compounded asafoetida it shall be not less than ten per cent. In all these appeals we are concerned with compounded asafoetida. It is familiar knowledge that the component parts of asafoetida are volatile oil, moisture, resin and sugar, while compounded asafoetida comprises of asafoetida, gum and wheat or rice flour (which themselves contain certain percentage of moisture as a necessary ingredient ). For the purpose of determining the percentage of alcoholic extract of compounded asafoetida, the process that is resorted to is to take a particular weight of compounded asafoetida, say 5 grams, and a certain quantity of alcohol and dissolve all the component parts which can be dissolved in alcohol. This process has to be continued till one reaches the stage when all the soluble component parts are dissolved in alcohol and the insoluble residue alone is left behind. For illustration, if the quantity that is taken for determination is five grams in weight, and if the soluble components are one gram and the insoluble residue is four grams, the alcoholic extract is determined as 1/1 4. In other words, it is said to be 20 per cent alcoholic extract. The controversy between the prosecution on the one side and the respondents on the other arises this way. Asafoetida in its original condition itself contains moisture. When compounded asafoetida is manufactured, wheat or rice flour and gum are used in the process and these component parts themselves contain moisture, the result being that compounded asafoetida contains a particular percentage of moisture as one of its essential component parts. The contention on behalf of the prosecution is that when the weight of the soluble contents of compounded asafoetida is determined, out of that weight the weight of the moisture in the compounded asafoetida should be deducted. If this is done, it will be seen that the percentage of alcoholic extract will be lessened. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that the entire weight of the soluble contents (including moisture) of compounded asafoetida should be taken into account and no distinction should be made between one soluble content and another soluble content of compounded asafoetida. In other words, if compounded asafoetida could be manufactured by the combination of several ingredients and moisture also is one of them, all the component parts, which are soluble, should be taken together and that weight as a unit should enter into computation of the alcoholic extract of compounded asafoetida. This method, if adopted, of course, would give to a higher percentage of alcoholic extract. I am of the opinion that if the prior history (one may call the legislative background) is taken into account, it must be held that the moisture content should also be included for the determination of the percentage of alcoholic extract of compounded asafoetida when applying the relevant rule A-04.

(2.) THE United States Pharmacopoeia of the year 1936 contains the formula for determining the percentage of alcoholic extract of compounded asafoetida, and it is expressly stated therein that the moisture content of compounded asafoetida should be excluded. In striking contrast with this, we have the British pharmacopoeia of the year 1932, pointing out just the other way about. According to the British Pharmacopoeia the percentage of alcoholic extract has to be determined by including the moisture content of compounded asafoetida. The pharmacopoeia of India, which is the authorised Government of India publication, dealing with asafoetida, contains the formula at page 70 of the book for determining the percentage of the alcoholic extract the relevant portion, viz. , at page 70:

(3.) IF the matter had stood there, I have no doubt that in finding out the correct percentage of alcoholic extract of a given quantity of compounded asafoetida, the moisture content has necessarily to be taken into account. I see no justification for not following this formula indicated in page 70 of the book in applying rule A-04. It is one thing if the rule itself contains enough, specific and express data. But, so long as the rule does not contain any such express specific indication and all that it states is merely a particular percentage of alcoholic extract the formula indicated in page 70 of the book mentioned above will necessarily apply. Otherwise, the purpose of this book will be rendered useless and it would result in chaos and confusion in administering laws of this kind. It must not be forgotten that the laws which deal with the prevention of adulteration of food and drugs are mainly in the pattern of criminal legislation and persons who are sought to be prosecuted should not be left in a state of uncertainty or doubt as to the requirements of the laws in question.