9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Definition of 'sale' under Section 2(xiii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. Interpretation of the word 'sale' in Rule 44-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Definition of 'sale' under Section 2(xiii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 The primary question was whether the definition of 'sale' in Section 2(xiii) is limited to the sale of articles of food for human consumption or extends to any sale regardless of the intended use. The court modified the question to focus on whether the definition extends to the sale of any article of food regardless of the use to which it is put. The facts of the case involved a Food Inspector purchasing a sample of Kesari dal from the accused, which was found to be of standard quality but prohibited for sale under Rule 44-A. The accused admitted the sale but claimed it was intended for use as cattle fodder, not for human consumption. The court analyzed the definitions in the Act, particularly Section 2(v) defining 'food' and Section 2(xiii) defining 'sale'. The definition of 'sale' includes any article of food sold for human consumption, use, or analysis. The court held that the definition of 'sale' is not confined to human consumption alone. It includes any sale of food articles, regardless of the intended use, including sales for analysis. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Mangaldas v. Maharashtra State, which held that a sale for analysis is also a sale within the meaning of the Act, indicating that the definition of 'sale' is broad and not limited to human consumption. The court also noted that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act deals with various modes of dealing with food articles, including manufacture for sale, storage, and distribution, and not just sale for human consumption. The court concluded that the Act's provisions must be interpreted broadly to include all forms of sale, irrespective of the intended use. Issue 2: Interpretation of the word 'sale' in Rule 44-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 The court examined whether the word 'sale' in Rule 44-A is used in its general sense or is restricted to the sale of Kesari dal for human consumption only. Rule 44-A prohibits the sale, offer, or possession for sale of Kesari dal and its products, regardless of the intended use. The court rejected the argument that the prohibition in Rule 44-A is limited to sales for human consumption. It held that the rule imposes a total ban on the sale of Kesari dal, irrespective of the intended use. The court emphasized that the definition of 'sale' in the Act includes all forms of sale and must be applied to Rule 44-A. The court also addressed the issue of mens rea, holding that the intention of the accused in selling the article is irrelevant. The Act does not require proving the accused's intention to sell for human consumption. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Mangaldas's case, which held that mens rea is not a necessary element for offenses under the Act. The court reviewed various authorities and previous decisions, including those of the Bombay High Court and other High Courts, which supported the view that the definition of 'sale' includes all forms of sale, and the intention of the seller is irrelevant. Conclusion: 1. The definition of 'sale' in Section 2(xiii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is not confined to the sale of articles of food for human consumption only but extends to the sale of any article of food regardless of the use to which it is put. 2. The word 'sale' in Rule 44-A is used in its general sense, imposing a total ban on the sale of Kesari dal, irrespective of the intended use. The court answered the reference accordingly and returned the papers for disposal of the criminal revision application.
|
