9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Prosecution for selling adulterated food under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Validity of analyst's report - Interpretation of Section 2(1)(j) regarding adulteration due to non-permitted colorants.
Analysis: The appellant, a Food Inspector, filed a complaint against the respondent for selling adulterated Jam Roll, violating the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Food Inspector purchased the jam roll, sampled it, and sent it for analysis, which revealed the presence of a non-permitted coal-tar dye, leading to the charge of adulteration. The evidence presented by the Food Inspector remained unchallenged during the trial. Several contentions challenging the validity of the sanction and the actions taken under Section 10(7) were overruled by the District Magistrate. The main contention leading to acquittal was the vagueness of the analyst's report regarding the quantity of the non-permitted colorant in the food, as required by Section 2(1)(j) of the Act. The District Magistrate interpreted Section 2(1)(j) literally, emphasizing the need for the colorant to be present in amounts not within the prescribed limits for adulteration to be established. However, this interpretation was challenged, arguing that the Act should be interpreted liberally to give effect to its intended purpose. The court cited various legal precedents emphasizing the need to avoid absurdities and inconsistencies in statutory interpretation. Applying the principles of statutory interpretation, the court concluded that the word "and" in Section 2(1)(j) should be read as "or" to avoid absurd outcomes. Therefore, the presence of a non-permitted colorant in the food, irrespective of the quantity, constitutes adulteration under the Act. Consequently, the acquittal was set aside, and the accused was convicted under relevant sections of the Act and sentenced to pay a fine or undergo imprisonment. In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 2(1)(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, highlighting the importance of a purposive and contextual understanding of statutory provisions to uphold the legislative intent and prevent inconsistencies in legal outcomes.
|
