“Storage” or “distribution” of
an adulterated article of food for
a purpose other than for sale does
not fall within the mischief of
this section.....................”
In the case in hand, it is not the allegation
that the appellant had stored Haldi and Rice for
sale.
Therefore, in our opinion, the allegations
made do not constitute any offence and, hence, the
prosecution of the appellant for an offence under
Section 16(1)(a) of the Act shall be an abuse of
the process of the Court.REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 541-542 OF 2014
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS.
4797-4798 OF 2011)
RUPAK KUMAR
...APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD,J1
Dated ;MARCH 04, 2014.
The
petitioner
is
aggrieved
by
the
order
whereby his prayer for quashing the order taking
cognizance
under
Section
16(1)(a)
of
the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and issuing
process has been declined.
Short
special
facts
leave
giving
petitions
rise
are
to
the
that
present
when
the
petitioner
was
posted
as
the
Superintendent
of
District Jail, Bihar Sharif, the Food Inspector
visited the jail premises and collected samples of
various materials including Haldi and Rice.
articles
were
prisoners.
stored
for
consumption
Those
of
the
The samples so collected were sent for
examination
and
analysis
and,
according
to
the
report of the Public Analyst, Haldi and Rice were
not
found
in
conformity
with
the
prescribed
standard and, therefore, held to be adulterated.
Accordingly, two separate prosecution reports were
submitted alleging commission of an offence under
Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
The
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
took
cognizance of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)
of
the
Act and
by
order dated 18 th of March,
2006 directed for issuance of process in both the
cases.
The petitioner assailed both the orders in
separate revision applications filed before the
Sessions
Judge;
but
both
were
dismissed.
Thereafter, the petitioner preferred two separate
applications,
being
Criminal
Miscellaneous
No.
15527 of 2010 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 15471
of 2010 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure before the High Court. The High Court,
by present
the
orders
impugned
in
the
special
leave petitions, has dismissed both the criminal
miscellaneous
applications.
It
is
in
these
circumstances the petitioner has filed the present
special leave petitions.
Leave granted.
Mr. Nagendra Rai, senior counsel appearing on
behalf of
point.
the
He
appellant
submits
that
raises
the
a
very
appellant
short
at
the
relevant time was the Superintendent of Jail and
food items which have been found to be adulterated
were
not
stored
consumption
of
for
the
sale
but
inmates.
were
He
meant
submits
for
that
according to the prosecution report, these food
items were not stored for sale and, therefore, the
allegations made do not come within the mischief
of Section 16(1)(a) of the Act.
We
have
bestowed
our
consideration
to
the
submission advanced and we find substance in the
same.
Section 7 of the Act, inter alia, prohibits
manufacture and sale of certain articles of food,
the same reads as follows:
“Section
7.
Prohibitions
of
manufacture, sale, etc. of certain
articles of food. – No person shall
himself or by any person on his
behalf manufacture for sale, or
store, sell or distribute-
(i)
any adulterated food;
(ii) any misbranded food;
(iii)any article of
sale of which
prescribed,
accordance with
of the licence;
food for the
a licence is
except
in
the conditions
(iv) any article of food the sale
of which is for the time being
prohibited
by
the
Food
(Health)
Authority
in
the
interest of public health;
(v)
any
article
of
food
in
contravention of any other
provision of this Act or of
any rule made thereunder; or
(vi) any adulterant.
Explanation-For the purposes of
this section, a person shall be
deemed to store any adulterated
food or misbranded food or any
article of food referred to in
clause (iii) or clause (iv) or
clause (v) if he stores such food
for the manufacture therefrom of
any article of food for sale.”
From
a
plain
reading
of
the
aforesaid
provision, it is evident that Section 7 prohibits
a person to ‘manufacture for sale’ or ‘store’ or
‘sell’
or
‘distribute’,
adulterated food.
inter
alia,
any
Contravention of Section 7 by
any person is punishable under Section 16 of the
Act.
Section 10 of the Act talks about the power
of Food Inspector and under this Section, he is
empowered to take sample of any article of food
from any person selling such article.
It is apt
to reproduce Section 10(1) and 10(2), which read
as follows:
“Section
10.
Powers
of
food
inspectors. - (1) A Food Inspector
shall have power-
(a) to take samples
article of food from-
of
any
(i) any person selling such
article;
(ii) any person who is in
the course of conveying,
delivering or preparing to
deliver such article to a
purchaser or consignee;
(iii) a consignee
delivery
of
any
article to him; and
after
such
(b) to send such sample for
analysis to the public analyst
for the local area within which
such sample has been taken;
(c) with the previous approval
of the Local (Health) Authority
having
jurisdiction
in
the
local area concerned, or with
the previous approval of the
Food
(Health)
Authority,
to
prohibit
the
sale
of
any
article of food in the interest
of public health.
Explanation-For the purposes of
sub-clause (iii) of clause (a),
“consignee” does not include a
person who purchases or receives
any article of food for his own
consumption.
(2) Any food inspector may enter
and inspect any place where any
article of food is manufactured, or
stored for sale, or stored for the
manufacture of any other article of
food for sale, or exposed or
exhibited for sale or where any
adulterant is manufactured or kept,
and take samples of such article of
food or adulterant for analysis:
Provided that no sample of any
article of food, being primary
food, shall be taken under this
sub-section if it is not intended
for sale as such food.”
A
conjoint
reading
of
the
aforesaid
provisions makes it clear that the Food Inspector
has the power to take sample of any article of
food from any person selling such article under
sub-section (1) whereas sub-section (2) confers on
him the power to enter and inspect any place where
any article of food is manufactured, stored or
exposed for sale and take samples of such articles
of food for analysis.
Section 16 provides for
penalties. Section 16(1)(a)(i) and 16(1)(a)(ii),
which
are
relevant
for
the
purpose
read
as
follows:
“Section
16.
Penalties.
-(1)
Subject
to
the
provisions
of
sub-section (IA) if any person-
(a) whether by himself or by any
other person on his behalf, imports
into India or manufactures for sale
or stores, sells or distributes any
article of food—
(i) which is adulterated within the
meaning of sub-clause (m) of
clause (ia) of section 2 or
Page 7
8
misbranded within the meaning
of clause (ix) of that section
or the sale of which is
prohibited under any provision
of this Act or any rule made
thereunder or by an order of
the Food (Health) Authority;
(ii) other than an article of food
referred to in sub-clause (i),
in contravention of any of the
provisions of this Act or of
any rule made thereunder ; or
xxx
xxx
xxx”
According to this section any person, who by
himself or by any other person on his behalf,
manufactures
for
sale
or
stores
or
sells
any
adulterated article is liable to be punished.
In
the
present
case,
according
to
the
prosecution, the appellant, a Superintendent of
Jail, had stored Rice and Haldi and, therefore,
his act comes within the mischief of Section 7 and
16 of the Act.
needs
to
be
expression
Section
16
In view of the aforesaid, what
decided
‘store’
of
as
the
is
used
Act
as
to
whether
in Section
would mean
simplicitor or storage for sale.
7
the
and
storage
We have referred
to the provisions of Section 7, Section 10 and
Page 8
9
Section 16 of the Act and from their conjoint
reading, it will appear that the Act is intended
to
prohibit
and
penalise
the
adulterated article of food.
sale
of
any
In our opinion, the
term ‘store’ shall take colour from the context
and the collocation in which it occurs in Section
7
and 16 of the
Act.
Applying
the
aforesaid
principle, we are of the opinion, that ‘storage’
of an adulterated article of food other than for
sale does not come within the mischief of Section
16 of the
Act.
pronouncement
Municipal
of
In
view
this
Corporation
of
Court
of
Delhi
the authoritative
in the
v.
case
Laxmi
of
Narain
Tandon, (1976) 1 SCC 546, this submission does not
need further elaboration.
In the said case it has
been held as follows:
“14. From a conjoint reading of the
above referred provisions, it will
be clear that the broad scheme of
the Act is to prohibit and penalise
the sale, or import, manufacture,
storage or distribution for sale of
any adulterated article of food.
The terms “store” and “distribute”
take their colour from the context
and the collocation of words in
which they occur in Sections 7 and
16. “Storage” or “distribution” of
an adulterated article of food for
a purpose other than for sale does
not fall within the mischief of
this section.....................”
In the case in hand, it is not the allegation
that the appellant had stored Haldi and Rice for
sale.
Therefore, in our opinion, the allegations
made do not constitute any offence and, hence, the
prosecution of the appellant for an offence under
Section 16(1)(a) of the Act shall be an abuse of
the process of the Court.
In
aside
the
the
result
we
impugned
allow
orders
these
and
appeals, set
quash the
appellant’s prosecution in both the cases.
........................................................................J
(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)
........................................................................J
(PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)
NEW DELHI,
MARCH 04, 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment