1969 (10) TMI 86 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Arbitrary standards of food quality violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
2. Legislative competence under Entry 18 of the Concurrent List.
3. Absence of standards for white pepper.
4. Validity of indicting a firm under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
5. Appointment of the Public Analyst.
6. Appointment of Food Inspectors.
7. Lack of allegations against Jiwan Lal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Arbitrary Standards of Food Quality Violating Article 19(1)(g):
The petitioners contended that the standards of food quality set under Section 23(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were arbitrary and disregarded attainable standards in the country. They argued that different standards for different states were set without considering relevant factors. The court held that the standards were prescribed after consultation with the Central Committee for Food Standards and subject to parliamentary oversight. Therefore, the standards did not violate Article 19(1)(g).

2. Legislative Competence under Entry 18 of the Concurrent List:
The petitioners argued that the definition of "adulteration" extended beyond its ordinary commercial sense, thus exceeding the legislative competence under Entry 18 of the Concurrent List. The court held that the legislative entry should be given a broad interpretation to effectuate its purpose. The definition of "adulteration" under the Act was within the legislative competence and did not violate the Constitution.

3. Absence of Standards for White Pepper:
The petitioners argued that no standards for white pepper had been prescribed, making the complaint invalid. The court held that this issue should be addressed by the trial court, as it pertains to the merits of the case.

4. Validity of Indicting a Firm under Section 16:
The petitioners contended that an artificial person like a firm could not be indicted under Section 16, as the punishment prescribed included imprisonment. The court held that a firm could be prosecuted and punished for offenses where imprisonment was not mandatory. The prosecution of the firm was valid as the offenses fell under the proviso to Section 16(1), which allowed for the imposition of a fine alone.

5. Appointment of the Public Analyst:
The petitioners argued that the appointment of the Public Analyst was invalid as he did not meet the prescribed medical qualifications. The court held that the Public Analyst satisfied the qualifications under the Act and that Fundamental Rule 10 did not apply. The appointment was valid, and the petitioners failed to show any rule violation.

6. Appointment of Food Inspectors:
The petitioners contended that the appointment of Food Inspectors was made en bloc without considering individual qualifications. The court held that the appointments were valid as the specific Food Inspector in question met the qualifications. The notification appointing Food Inspectors by office was not indicative of a lack of application of mind.

7. Lack of Allegations Against Jiwan Lal:
The petitioners argued that no specific allegations were made against Jiwan Lal in the complaint. The court held that this issue should be addressed by the trial court, as it pertains to the merits of the case.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed all the writ petitions, holding that the standards of food quality were valid, the legislative competence was not exceeded, the appointment of the Public Analyst and Food Inspectors was valid, and the firm could be prosecuted under the proviso to Section 16(1). The issues regarding the absence of standards for white pepper and the lack of allegations against Jiwan Lal were left for the trial court to decide. The parties were directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on November 15, 1969.