1982 (1) TMI 205 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Acquittal of the accused under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
2. Interpretation of Section 2(ia)(f) and clauses (l) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
3. Applicability of the Supreme Court judgments in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo Mai and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia.
4. Definition and treatment of "primary food" under the Act.
5. Powers and limitations of Food Inspectors under the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Acquittal of the Accused:
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, acquitted the accused-respondent of the charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The acquittal was based on the Supreme Court judgment in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo Mai, which emphasized that proof of the unfitness of the article for human consumption is necessary to bring the case within its purview. The Public Analyst's report did not specify whether the 'Sabat Haldi' was unfit for human consumption or injurious to health.

2. Interpretation of Section 2(ia)(f) and Clauses (l) and (m):
Section 2(ia)(f) of the Act deems an article of food to be adulterated if it is insect-infested or otherwise unfit for human consumption. The Supreme Court in Kacheroo Mai's case held that these terms should be read conjunctively. However, amendments brought by Parliament Act No. 34 of 1976 introduced clauses (l) and (m), which distinguish between food that is injurious to health and food that is sub-standard due to natural causes. The court noted that these amendments were intended to ensure that innocent people are not unnecessarily harassed and that primary food, which is non-injurious to health, is exempted from being deemed adulterated if sub-standard due to natural causes.

3. Applicability of Supreme Court Judgments:
The State of Haryana appealed, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia, which held that even slight insect infestation makes the article adulterated. However, the court noted that the amendments to the Act and the introduction of the concept of "primary food" rendered the overlapping of clauses (l) and (m) with clause (f) inapplicable. The court based its decision on its reasoning rather than solely on the Supreme Court judgments.

4. Definition and Treatment of "Primary Food":
The court emphasized that 'Sabat Haldi' is a primary food, being a produce of agriculture in its natural form. The amendments to the Act placed primary food at a different level, exempting it from being deemed adulterated if sub-standard due to natural causes and beyond human control. The court highlighted that primary food, if non-injurious to health, should not attract penal consequences even if sub-standard.

5. Powers and Limitations of Food Inspectors:
Parliament Act No. 34 of 1976 introduced a proviso to Section 10(2), restricting Food Inspectors from taking samples of primary food unless it is intended for sale as such food. This curb aims to protect producers and keepers of primary food from harassment and allows them to declare the food not for sale if suspected of adulteration. The court noted that the turmeric fingers in question could have been naturally infested by insects, and the Public Analyst's report was deficient in specifying whether the article was injurious to health or adulterated by human agency.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the amendments to the Act and the concept of primary food rendered the application of clause (f) inapplicable in this case. The deficient report of the Public Analyst and the possibility of natural insect infestation warranted the maintenance of the acquittal. The appeal by the State of Haryana was dismissed.