1952 (12) TMI 45 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Proper or sufficient analysis of the 'ghee content' in the sample Poori.
2. Whether Poori fried in adulterated ghee constitutes "adulterated food" under the Municipal Law.
3. Impact of legislative change from the old Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, to the new Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, on the prosecution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Proper or Sufficient Analysis of the 'Ghee Content' in the Sample Poori:
The appellants contended that the analysis of the 'ghee content' in the sample Poori was not properly conducted to justify the report that it was "adulterated with foreign fat." The court examined the analyst's report, which described the adulteration as "a sample of puri prepared in ghee which is adulterated with foreign fat." The court found the analysis credible and overruled the appellants' first contention, agreeing with the Magistrate that the 'ghee content' was indeed adulterated.

2. Whether Poori Fried in Adulterated Ghee Constitutes "Adulterated Food" Under the Municipal Law:
The court examined the definitions of "food" and "adulterated" under both the old and new Municipal Acts. Under the statutory definition, "food" includes every article used for food or drink by man, and Poori falls within this definition. The court considered Sub-clauses (i), (ii), (vi), and (viii) of Clause (c) of the definition section. The court found that the sample Poori, fried in ghee adulterated with foreign fat, diminished its food value or nutritive properties and was not of the nature, substance, or quality it purported to be. Thus, it constituted "adulterated food" under the Municipal Law. The court rejected the appellants' argument that the absence of a prescribed standard for Poori or Poori fried in ghee precluded the application of the relevant sub-clauses.

3. Impact of Legislative Change from the Old Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, to the New Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, on the Prosecution:
The appellants argued that the repeal of the old Act and the introduction of the new Act during the prosecution should result in the lapsing of the proceedings or necessitate a retrial. The court referred to Section 8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act, which prevents the lapsing of proceedings due to legislative changes. The court held that the prosecution could continue under the old Act, and the appellants' conviction under the new Act did not prejudice them as the ingredients for the offences under both Acts were the same. The court altered the appellants' conviction from Sections 461/537 of the new Act to Sections 406/488 of the old Act but confirmed the sentences.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the appellants' sentences while altering the conviction to align with the old Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923.