DHIRAJLAL VALJI KOTAK Vs. RAMCHANDRA JANGLAJI GUJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO questions have been referred for our decision as follows:

(2.) AFTER arguments had proceeded in the reference before us, we felt that in order to bring out the particular points which have been urged on behalf of the applicant accused and the State, it would be necessary to modify the first question, and with the consent of counsel for both the parties, we have modified it as follows: (1) Whether the definition of 'sale' contained in Section 2 (xiii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is confined to the sale of articles of food for human consumption alone or extends to the sale of an article of food regardless of the use to which it is put? we have referred to the "use" because that is the word used in the definition of sale in Section 2 (xiii) and not purpose, though, as we shall presently show, that makes no substantial difference.

(3.) THE circumstances under which the reference arose may be briefly stated:-- On 13-10-1966, a Food Inspector of the Municipal Council, Akot, visited the shop of the applicant-accused Dhirajlal Valji Kotak. The accused carries on business in partnership in the name of Valji Madhavji Kotak Kirana Shop. The Food Inspector asked for a sample of Kesari dal or Lakh dal, purchased 750 grams of it and took action in terms of Section 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to ag the Act ). He divided the sample into three parts and packed each part as prescribed. When one of the packets was sent for analysis, it was found that the article purchased by the Food Inspector was of standard quality but that the sale of that article, namely, Kesari dal, was prohibited under the Act The prosecution alleged that its possession and sale is prohibited by Rule 44-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). The accused therefore came to be prosecuted under Section 7 (v) read with Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act.