1979 (10) TMI 218 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of "adulterated" u/s 2(i)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
2. Protection under s. 19(2) of the Act for the respondent.

Summary:

Issue 1: Interpretation of "adulterated" u/s 2(i)(f)
The Supreme Court addressed whether the term "adulterated" as defined in s. 2(i)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, includes insect-infested food without further proof of unfitness for human consumption. The Delhi High Court had acquitted the respondent, holding that insect infestation alone was insufficient to deem food "adulterated" unless it was also proven to be "otherwise unfit for human consumption." The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the words "or is otherwise unfit for human consumption" are disjunctive and form a separate category. Therefore, mere proof of insect infestation is sufficient to classify food as "adulterated." The Court clarified that the interpretation in Dhanraj v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo Mal was incorrect and should be confined to their specific facts. The Supreme Court emphasized that the presence of insects in food like cashew nuts, even without further evidence of harm, meets the definition of "adulterated."

Issue 2: Protection under s. 19(2)
The respondent claimed protection under s. 19(2) of the Act, arguing that the cashew nuts were purchased in sealed tins from a supplier with a warranty. The Supreme Court found no evidence of a written warranty in the prescribed form or any label guaranteeing purity. The invoice Ext. DW 3/A did not constitute a warranty. The Court noted that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, particularly r. 12A, require a specific form of warranty, which was absent in this case. Consequently, the respondent was not protected under s. 19(2).

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and convicted the respondent under s. 16(1)(a) read with s. 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Considering mitigating factors, including the respondent's age and the time elapsed since the offence, the Court refrained from imposing a substantive sentence of imprisonment and instead imposed a fine of Rs. 2000, with a default sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment.