1961 (2) TMI 84 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the appellant committed an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, even if the butter in question was not "butter" within the meaning of the Rules.
2. Whether butter prepared from curds falls within the definition of "butter" under Rule A.11.05 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
3. Whether the butter sent to the Public Analyst was the same as the butter seized from the appellant.
4. Whether the report of the Public Analyst was vague and insufficient for conviction.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the appellant committed an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, even if the butter in question was not "butter" within the meaning of the Rules:

The Supreme Court assumed for the sake of argument that the appellant would not be liable for conviction unless the butter seized from him was "butter" within the meaning of the rule. Therefore, the Court did not delve further into this issue, focusing instead on the definition of "butter" and whether the seized butter met this definition.

2. Whether butter prepared from curds falls within the definition of "butter" under Rule A.11.05 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955:

The Court examined the definition of "butter" as per Rule A.11.05, which states that butter is "the product prepared exclusively from the milk or cream of cow or buffalo, or both." The Court noted that in India, butter is often prepared from curd, especially in rural areas, and that this process still uses milk as the base material. The Court concluded that the word "prepared" has a comprehensive meaning, encompassing different processes, including the use of curd. Therefore, butter prepared from curd falls within the definition of "butter" under the rule. The Court also dismissed the argument that penal statutes should be construed strictly in favor of the accused, stating that the primary test is the language employed in the Act.

3. Whether the butter sent to the Public Analyst was the same as the butter seized from the appellant:

The High Court had accepted the evidence of the Food Inspector and the Health Officer, concluding that the bottle sent to the Public Analyst was indeed the sample seized from the appellant. The Supreme Court found no permissible grounds to challenge this finding and accepted it.

4. Whether the report of the Public Analyst was vague and insufficient for conviction:

The appellant argued that the report was ambiguous because it indicated that the butter contained 19.57% moisture, 64.67% milk fat, and 18.32% foreign fat, totaling more than 100%. The Court clarified that the 18.32% foreign fat was a percentage relative to the fat content, not the total butter. The report clearly indicated that the butter sold by the appellant was below the prescribed standard, making it adulterated under the Act.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment that butter prepared from curd falls within the definition of "butter" under Rule A.11.05. The Court also found that the butter sent to the Public Analyst was the same as the butter seized from the appellant and that the Public Analyst's report was not vague. However, considering the conflicting views on the definition of butter and a subsequent amendment to the rule, the Court modified the sentence from two months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250 to a fine of Rs. 500. The appeal was dismissed with this modification.