1975 (9) TMI 179 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of "insect-infested" u/s 2(i)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
2. Whether the presence of dead insects renders food "adulterated".
3. Adequacy of the Public Analyst's report in determining food adulteration.

Summary:

1. Interpretation of "insect-infested" u/s 2(i)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954:
The Supreme Court held that the interpretation by the High Court, which required the presence of living insects to classify food as "insect-infested," was erroneous. The term "insect-infested" should be construed in the context of food meant for human consumption, meaning that the article is unfit for human consumption if it abounds in insects, dead or living. The Court approved the reasoning in Dhanraj v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which stated that an article of food would be "insect-infested" if attacked by insects in large numbers, regardless of whether the insects are alive or dead.

2. Whether the presence of dead insects renders food "adulterated":
The Court clarified that the phrase "or is otherwise unfit for human consumption" in s. 2(i)(f) can be read conjunctively, meaning proof of unfitness for human consumption is necessary. The adjectives like "filthy," "putrid," "disgusting," "rotten," "decomposed," and "insect-infested" are presumptive but not absolute criteria for determining the quality of the article. The Court emphasized that the presence of insect-infestation alone does not conclusively prove adulteration unless it renders the article unfit for human consumption.

3. Adequacy of the Public Analyst's report in determining food adulteration:
The Court noted that the Public Analyst's report must be self-contained, providing necessary data and reasons for the opinion. The report should not be merely dogmatic but should include specific reasons why the sample is deemed unfit for human consumption. In this case, the report was found to be vague and deficient as it did not explicitly state that the insect-infestation rendered the cashewnuts unfit for human consumption. The Court highlighted that the opinion of the Public Analyst is evidence but not conclusive, and it is for the court to weigh this opinion and reach its own finding.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal of the respondent due to the inadequacy of the Public Analyst's report and the prolonged nature of the proceedings. The Court clarified the legal interpretation of "insect-infested" and the necessity of proving unfitness for human consumption to establish food adulteration u/s 2(i)(f) of the Act.