9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (8) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.W. 1 the Food Inspector purchased jam rolls kept for sale in the Star Bakery owned by the first accused and run by his son the second accused. The article of food purchased was duly sampled by P.W. 1 in the presence of two witnesses one of whom is the employee of the bakery itself. The sample was sent to the Put lie Analyst for analysis and the analyst in his certificate reported that the sample contains a non-permitted coal-tar dye and was therefore adulterated. 2. The Food Inspector who purchased the jam roll gave evidence in support of the case. His evidence remains practically unchallenged. When the accused were questioned about the evidence the first accused stated that he used only the permitted dyes and the second accused merel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lours which may be added to any food shall not exceed (0. 2 grams per kilogram) of the final food or beverage for consumption. 6. The report of the Public Analysis shows that two types of coaltar dyes were used in the preparation of the jam roll one of which was Tattrazine a yellow permitted coaltar dye and the other Rhodamlne 'B' a rose basic coaltar dye which is not of the permitted categories: 7. As a non-permitted variety of coaltar dye was found used in the preparation of the jam roll no question of the exact amount which was used will arise. However the learned District Magistrate gave a literal interpretation to Section 2(1)(j) and held that the accused could be found guilty of the charge only if any colouring matter ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the law goes so far as to require the Courts sometimes even to modify the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words if by doing so absurdity and inconsistency can be avoided. To the same effect are the observations made by the Supreme Court in Siraj-ul-Haq v. S. C. Board of Waqf, U. P., AIR 1959 SC 198 where his Lordship Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar as he then was held that:- It is well settled that in construing the provisions of a statute courts should be slow to adopt a construction which tends to make any part of the statute meaningless or ineffective; an attempt must always be made so to reconcile the relevant provisions as to advance the remedy intended by the statute. In such a case, it is legitimate and even necessary to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsurdity or an anomaly or of rendering the legislation of no effect, a narrower or a broader meaning may be given to the word or it may be construed in such a way as to obviate the absurdity or anomaly on the principle that it could not have been the intention of the Legislature to create absurdities or anomalies or to render its enactments of no effect. In such a situation the word and may well be construed in a disjunctive sense and be read 39 or . 9. Applying these principles to the, case on hand it is absolutely clear that the word and in Section 2(1)(j) has to. be read as or . A literal interpretation of the word will lead to an absurdity, viz., totally prohibited dyes may be used within prescribed limits. The prohibition, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
