9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of the definition of "food" and "sale" under the Food Adulteration Act. - Determining whether the sale of adulterated gingelly oil intended for external use constitutes a sale of an article of food. - Clarification on the legal position regarding the sale of food products not intended for human consumption. Analysis: The case involved the sale of gingelly oil mixed with groundnut oil, represented as gingelly oil, by the respondent to the Food Inspector. The respondent claimed the oil was for external use, not human consumption. The Trial Magistrate convicted him under relevant sections of the Food Adulteration Act, but the Sessions Judge acquitted him. The State appealed to the High Court, which upheld the acquittal. The Supreme Court clarified the legal position, focusing on the definitions of "food" and "sale" under the Act. The Court emphasized that an article need not be intended for human consumption to be considered "food" under the Act. Even if an article is commonly used for human consumption, it falls under the definition of "food." The Act aims to protect vulnerable populations who may consume unfit products due to poverty. The Court rejected the argument that sale for external use exempts an article from being considered food, stating that the definition of "sale" under the Act is broad and covers various types of sales, including for analysis. The Court addressed previous confusion in interpreting the Act, emphasizing that the sale of adulterated gingelly oil, regardless of its intended use, constitutes a sale of an article of food. The judgment clarified that the Act's scope includes articles commonly used for human consumption, irrespective of labeling or intended use. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the sale of adulterated food products, even if labeled for external use, violates the Food Adulteration Act.
|
