1985 (3) TMI 302 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Definition and interpretation of "adulterated" under Section 2(1)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
2. Whether the presence of worms in the food sample constitutes adulteration.
3. Requirement of proof for unfitness for human consumption.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Definition and Interpretation of "Adulterated" under Section 2(1)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954:
The appeal concerns the interpretation of "adulterated" as defined in Section 2(1)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The section states that an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if it consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, disgusting, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect-infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption. The debate revolves around whether the term "insect-infested" includes the presence of worms and whether the phrase "or is otherwise unfit for human consumption" should be read conjunctively or disjunctively with the preceding terms.

2. Whether the Presence of Worms in the Food Sample Constitutes Adulteration:
The respondent was acquitted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, on the grounds that the mere presence of nine living meal worms in the lal mirchi powder did not satisfy the definition of "adulterated" under the Act. The prosecution relied on the Public Analyst's report, which identified the presence of meal worms but did not classify the sample as insect-infested or unfit for human consumption. The Calcutta High Court's decision in M/s Narkeklange Roller Flour Mills v. The Corporation of Calcutta was cited, where it was held that worms and insects are not synonymous, and the presence of worms alone does not constitute adulteration unless it renders the food unfit for human consumption.

3. Requirement of Proof for Unfitness for Human Consumption:
The Supreme Court analyzed past judgments to determine whether mere infestation by worms or insects is sufficient to deem food adulterated or if additional proof of unfitness for human consumption is required. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo Mal, the court preferred a conjunctive reading, stating that proof of unfitness for human consumption is necessary. Conversely, in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia, the court held that the presence of filthy, putrid, or insect-infested substances alone is sufficient to classify the food as adulterated, without needing further proof of unfitness for human consumption.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, agreeing that the prosecution failed to prove that the lal mirchi powder was adulterated under Section 2(1)(f) of the Act. The Public Analyst's report did not state that the sample was insect-infested or unfit for human consumption. The court refrained from resolving the conflicting interpretations of Section 2(1)(f) due to the equal strength of the benches in the cited cases. The appeal was dismissed as the evidence was inadequate to overturn the acquittal.

Judgment:
The appeal by the Delhi Administration was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision to uphold the acquittal of the respondent.