1969 (6) TMI 44 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the offence of adulteration under Section 2(i)(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was proved.
2. Whether the offence falls under Section 2(i)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
3. Whether the case is fit for action under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Offence of Adulteration under Section 2(i)(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
The Food Inspector filed a complaint alleging that the accused sold Mysorepak containing metanil yellow coaltar-dye, which is prohibited under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules. The trial court found the Mysorepak adulterated and convicted the accused under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Sections 7 and 2(i)(j) of the Act. The Sessions Judge confirmed this conviction and sentence.

The relevant portion of Section 2(i)(j) states that an article of food is deemed adulterated if it contains any non-prescribed coloring matter or if the quantity of its constituents exceeds prescribed limits. The rules under the Act specifically prohibit the addition of unauthorized coloring matter, including inorganic pigments and non-permitted coaltar dyes. Metanil yellow is not listed as a permitted coaltar dye under Rule 28, thus its use is prohibited.

The court interpreted the word "and" in Section 2(i)(j) as "or" to avoid absurdity, as a literal conjunctive reading would imply that a totally prohibited coloring matter could be used within prescribed limits, which is illogical. The court relied on precedents where "and" was interpreted as "or" to give effect to the legislative intent and avoid absurd results. Therefore, the court upheld the finding that the accused's use of metanil yellow constituted an offence under Section 2(i)(j).

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 2(i)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
The accused contended that the case should fall under Section 2(i)(1), which deals with the quality or purity of the article falling below the prescribed standard. However, the court found that since the Mysorepak contained a prohibited coloring matter, it was specifically covered under Section 2(i)(j) rather than Section 2(i)(1). The court concluded that Section 2(i)(j) was the more appropriate provision and upheld the conviction under this section.

Issue 3: Action under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act
The accused, an elderly man and a petty shopkeeper, argued for leniency under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The minimum sentence prescribed under the Act was six months' imprisonment and a fine, which the Sessions Judge felt compelled to impose despite acknowledging the harshness of the sentence given the accused's circumstances.

Considering the special circumstances, including the accused's age and the nature of the offence, the court deemed it fit to apply Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. The court set aside the conviction and sentence, directing the accused to be released on probation for one year, during which he must maintain good behavior. The court also ordered the refund of any fine paid.

Conclusion
The court upheld the conviction under Section 2(i)(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, rejected the applicability of Section 2(i)(1), and granted probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, considering the accused's age and circumstances.