1980 (8) TMI 211 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.
2. Adequacy of the sample weight as per Rule 22.
3. Determination of whether the sample was milk ice or milk ice-cream.
4. Adulteration of the sample based on the fat content.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules:

Issue: Whether the provisions of Rule 18 are mandatory and whether the rule is violated if the copy of the memorandum in Form VII and the impression of the seal are sent through the same messenger at the same time.

Judgment: The court unanimously agreed that Rule 18 is mandatory. The purpose of Rule 18 is to ensure the correct sample reaches the Public Analyst without tampering. The court clarified that "separately" means the sample and the memorandum in Form VII should not be enclosed together but sent in separate packets. It does not require sending them at different times or by different persons. The court found that sending both packets through the same messenger does not violate Rule 18, provided they are sealed separately.

Conclusion: The court held that there was no infraction of Rule 18 as the sample and the memorandum were sent in separate sealed covers, even though they were delivered by the same messenger.

2. Adequacy of the Sample Weight as per Rule 22:

Issue: Whether the sample weight being less than the prescribed 300 grams in Rule 22 prejudiced the respondent.

Judgment: The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in *State of Kerala v. Alasserry Mohammad*, which stated that Rule 22 is directory and not mandatory. The term "approximate quantity" indicates that the quantity should be close to the specified amount, and minor deviations do not constitute a violation if the sample is sufficient for analysis.

Conclusion: The court found that the sample weight of 200 grams did not prejudice the respondent and was sufficient for analysis. Therefore, the acquittal on this ground was set aside.

3. Determination of Whether the Sample was Milk Ice or Milk Ice-Cream:

Issue: Whether the sample taken was milk ice or milk ice-cream.

Judgment: The respondent had signed Form VI, describing the sample as "golden milk ice" and listing its constituents. The court noted that the respondent, being educated, had provided this description and the details of the constituents, which the Food Inspector could not have known otherwise.

Conclusion: The court held that the sample was indeed milk ice, as described by the respondent in Form VI. The trial magistrate's finding that it could not be determined with certainty was overturned.

4. Adulteration of the Sample Based on the Fat Content:

Issue: Whether the sample was adulterated based on its fat content.

Judgment: The Public Analyst found the milk fat content to be 4.16%, exceeding the maximum standard of 2% prescribed for milk ice. This deviation indicated that the sample was adulterated.

Conclusion: The court held that the sample did not conform to the definition of milk ice and was thus adulterated. The respondent was found guilty of selling an adulterated food article.

Final Judgment:
The order of acquittal was set aside. The respondent was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, read with Section 7, and sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. In default of payment of the fine, the respondent would undergo an additional two months of rigorous imprisonment.