1966 (1) TMI 81 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of standards under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules - Conviction based on adulteration of butter-milk.

In this case, the appellant, as the manager of a dairy farm, was charged with selling adulterated butter-milk under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The charge was based on the discrepancy in the solids-not-fat content of the butter-milk sample purchased from the depot. The District Magistrate initially acquitted the appellant, reasoning that no specific standard was prescribed for butter-milk. However, the High Court reversed the decision, holding that the standard for curd should apply to butter-milk as well, leading to the conviction of the appellant and imposition of a fine. The appellant argued that since no specific standard was set for butter-milk, he could not be convicted for not maintaining a standard.

The key legal provisions examined in this case were Section 2(i)(1), Section 7, and Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which define adulteration and offenses related to the sale of adulterated food products. The Central Government, under the Act, has the authority to define standards for food products, as seen in Rule 5 of the Act, which provides for the standards of quality for various food items. The appellant contended that the absence of a specific standard for butter-milk meant he could not be held liable for adulteration based on the solids-not-fat content.

The Court analyzed the definitions of various milk products under Appendix B of the Rules and observed that specific standards were set for milk, curd, skimmed milk, and other products, but no such standard was prescribed for butter-milk. The Court noted that while standards were fixed for milk and curd, the absence of a standard for butter-milk indicated a deliberate omission by the rule-making authority. The Court emphasized that the process of converting curds into butter-milk inherently involves the addition of water, making it impractical to maintain the same solids-not-fat content as in curds. Therefore, the Court concluded that the appellant could not be convicted for not meeting a standard that was not explicitly defined for butter-milk.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, reinstating the District Magistrate's acquittal of the appellant. The Court clarified that the absence of a prescribed standard for butter-milk precluded the appellant's conviction for adulteration based on the solids-not-fat content. The judgment highlighted the importance of explicit standards in determining adulteration offenses and emphasized the need for clarity in legal provisions to avoid ambiguity in enforcement.