STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAMA NAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon acquitted the accused-respondent Rama Nand of the charge Under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo Mai, (1975) 2 FAC 223:1976 Cri LJ 336 ). The sample of 'sabat Haldi' taken from the respondent on 2-12-1977 was found by the Public Analyst to contain insect damaged ringers 7. 7 per cent against the maximum prescribed standard of 5. 0 per cent, besides one living weevil and one dead meal worm. The report of the Public Analyst was silent whether the article was unfit for human consumption or otherwise injurious or non-injurious to health. The State of Haryana appealed and relied at the admission stage on a later decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia, (1979) 2 FAC 218:1980 Cri L. T 316, to contend that Kacheroo Mai's case supra) was no longer a binding precedent in view of the later judgment in Tek Chand Bhatia's case supra ). It is in these circumstances that the appeal was admitted and has been placed before us.

(2.) THE facts are straight and simple The accused-respondent aged about 70 years is a shopkeeper at Retail Market, Hali Mandi, Gurgaon. On 2-12-1977, the Food Inspector visited his shop and found him to be in possession of 18 kgs. of 'sabat Haldi' (turmeric fingers) for sale contained in a gunny bag. The Food Inspector served the requisite notice in accordance with the Food Adulteration Rules and purchased 600 grammes of 'sabat Haldi1 for analysis. The same was divided into three equal parts and bottled in three dry and clean bottles which were duly labelled and stoppered and securely fastened. The Public Analyst, to whom one such sample was sent, received the sample on 6-121977 and caused it to be analysed on 12-1-1978, after a period of one month and six days. The result of his analysis has been noticed earlier. The respondent on that score was prosecuted on complaint filed by the Food Inspector who supported it, by his own evidence as P. W. 1, by Dr. S. P. Ghai P. W. 3 accompanying him, and the report of the Public Analyst. As said before, the accused was acquitted on the strength of Kacheroo Mai's case 1976 Cri LJ 336) (SC) (supra) as also on a judgment rendered by a single Judge of this Court in Vijay Kumar and Hassan Lal v. State of Punjab, (1977) 2 FAC 117. The appellant State of Haryana prays for the reversal of the judgment and conviction of the accused-respondent in view of Tek Chand Bhatia's case 1980 Cri LJ 316) (SC) (supra ). The charge against the respondent was that he had contravened the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and committed an offence Under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act. It would now be apt to examine the alleged contravention as also the provisions which make his act culpable.

(3.) TO begin with, Under Section 2 (1) (f), an article of food was deemed to be adulterated if the article consists wholly or in part any filthy, putrid, disgusting, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect-infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption. In Kacheroo Mai's case 1976 Cri LJ 336) (supra, the Supreme Court held that the phrase "or otherwise unfit for human consumption" should be read conjunctively and not disjunctively in association with what precedes it. it was held that proof of the unfitness of the article for human consumption is a must for bringing the case within its purview. Later, by Parliament Act No. 34 of 1976, changes were brought about in Section 2 of the Act inasmuch as Clause (i) was renumbered as Clause (ia) and Sub-clause (f) was remodelled so as lo exclude therefrom the words "disgusting". In addition thereto, underlined qualifications were added to Sub-clause (1) and a new Sub-clause (m) was added, along with a proviso, which may be noted herein: 2 (i) (1) if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability, which renders it in-jurious to health: (m) If the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability but which does not render it injurious to health: