1973 (10) TMI 53 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Is supari food?
2. Is good faith of the vendor legally exculpatory in a food offence?
3. Are saccharin and cyclamate health hazards, and is their prohibition an unconstitutional restriction on trade?
4. Are the rules banning saccharin and cyclamate arbitrary and unreasonable?
5. Is there discrimination against supari compared to carbonated waters regarding saccharin use?
6. Does the offence fall under Section 16(1)(a)(i) or Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act?
7. Should the sentence be reduced considering the circumstances?
8. Should the Probation of Offenders Act be applied to the accused?

Detailed Analysis:

1. Is supari food?
The court held that supari is food within the meaning of Section 2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The term "food" is defined very widely, covering any article used as food and every component which enters into it, including flavoring matter and condiments. Supari is consumed by the ordinary man for taste and nourishment, thus qualifying as food.

2. Is good faith of the vendor legally exculpatory in a food offence?
The court emphasized that in food offences, strict liability is the rule. The principle is that the distribution of impure or adulterated food is perilous to human health, and the intent or good faith of the seller does not exonerate them. The act itself, not the intent, determines the guilt. Section 7 casts an absolute obligation regardless of scienter, bad faith, and mens rea.

3. Are saccharin and cyclamate health hazards, and is their prohibition an unconstitutional restriction on trade?
The court found that saccharin and cyclamate have potential health risks, with saccharin being removed from the GRAS list in the United States due to its marginal potential danger. Cyclamates have been linked to bladder tumors in test animals. The prohibition on these substances is based on scientific research and recommendations by the Central Committee for Food Standards. The court held that the government's discretion, exercised after consultation with a technical body, is not arbitrary or unreasonable and does not violate constitutional rights.

4. Are the rules banning saccharin and cyclamate arbitrary and unreasonable?
The court rejected the argument that the rules banning saccharin and cyclamate are arbitrary and unreasonable. The rules were framed based on scientific advice and the need to protect public health. The court emphasized that it is not within its function to re-evaluate the technical and scientific basis of such rules.

5. Is there discrimination against supari compared to carbonated waters regarding saccharin use?
The court found a basis for the distinction between supari and carbonated waters. Carbonated waters are allowed limited quantities of saccharin due to the lower risk of consumption compared to supari. The differentiation is based on scientific and health considerations, and the court did not find it to be discriminatory.

6. Does the offence fall under Section 16(1)(a)(i) or Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act?
The court concluded that the offence falls under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 7(v) of the Act. There was no proof that the addition of saccharin and cyclamate was injurious to health, thus not qualifying as "adulterated" food under Section 7(i). The violation was of the rules, making it an offence under Section 7(v).

7. Should the sentence be reduced considering the circumstances?
The court acknowledged that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act mandates a minimum sentence of six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. However, the court noted that the High Court did not consider the quantum of the sentence under the correct provision (Section 7(v) read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii)). The court found no adequate and special reasons to reduce the sentence below the statutory minimum.

8. Should the Probation of Offenders Act be applied to the accused?
The court held that the Probation of Offenders Act should not be applied to the accused due to the serious nature of food adulteration offences. The Act aims to eradicate this anti-social evil, and the legislature's intention is reflected in the prescribed minimum sentence. The court emphasized that economic offences by white-collar criminals are unlikely to be dissuaded by probationary measures.

Conclusion:
The writ petition and the criminal appeal were dismissed. The court upheld the conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 7(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and maintained the sentence imposed by the High Court. The court emphasized the importance of stringent enforcement of food safety laws to protect public health.