PREM BALLAR & ANR v. THE STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)
Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 592; 1976 INSC 220
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI , S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI
Judgment date:
Case summary
1976 INSC 220. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1976-09-15. PREM BALLAR & ANR v. THE STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION). Read the judgment and case details...
Judgment text
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1977) 1 S. C. R. PREM BALLAR & ANR v. THE STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) September 15. 1976 [P. N. BHAGWATI AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au, JJ. T Preventiol! of Food Ad11/teratio11 Act 1954-Sec. 16(1 )(a) (i)-2(1 )---2(1) (cl . _ --2(1) (i)-2(1) (l)-Preve11tio11 of Food Ad11lteration Rules-R11/es 23-28 and 29-Can col! viction be based 011 sole testimony of a Food Inspector-Can an > article fall under c/a11se (j) & (I) of Sec. 2(i)-Are they 11111t11a/ly cxclusfre or / overlappi11g-Whe11 mies are silent abo11t colouring material can 11se of dye be I-punished-Do provisions of probation of offe11der. 1· Act apply to o(fenccs under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act. :: The second appellant was the owner of a grocery shop and the first appellant was his salesman in the shop. Food Inspector Bhanot purchased a sample . ,. from appellant No. 1 of mustard oil after complying with the formalities prescribed by the Act.
The Public Analyst reported that the sample was misbranded as it was of ! in-seed oil and it was adulterated due to the presence of artificial dye. the appellants were charge-sheeted under section 16( 1 )(a ){i). The learned Magistrate convicted the appellants and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 9 months. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence from 9 months to 6 months. The High Court, in revision upheld the decision of the Sessions Judge. On appeal of Special Leave the appellants wntended : 1. The conviction was bad since it rested solely on the evidence of Food Inspector Bhanot. 2. The offence committed by the appellants on the opinion of the Public Analyst fell under section 16(1 )(a)(i) read with clause (1) of section 2 (i) and, therefore, the Court had discretion under the proviso to section 16 (1) to impose a lesser sentence than the minimum of 6 months. 3.
In alny event, the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, should be given to the appellants. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : l. There is no rule of law that conviction cannot be based on the sole testimony of. a Food Inspector. It is only out of a sense of caution that the courts insist that the testimony of a Food Inspector should be corroborated by some independent witnesi:. This is a necessary caution which has to be borne in mind because the Food Inspector may in a sense be regarded as an interested witness. But this caution is a rule of prudence and not a rule of law. If it were otherwise it would be possible for many guilty persons to escape punishment by resorting to the device of bribing Panch witnesses. In the present case, the sample was taken in the presence of witness Krishan Datt Sharma who has turned hostile. His explanation is palpably dishonest and cannot be ac r mineral oil.
It shall conform to the following standards : (a) Butyro-refractometer reading at 40°C ...... 69. 5 to 74. 3 (b) Saponification value ............ 188 to 195 ( c) Iodine value .......... Not less than 170 (d) Unsaphnifiable matter ........ Not more than 1. 5 per cent (e) Free fatty acid as Oleic acid-not more than 2. 0 per cent. " The argument of the 'appellants was that the requirement of this paragraph that linseed oil shall be free from foreign matter or added colouring substances lays down a standard of quality of linseed oil and since the linseed oil sold by the appellants contained artificial dye, the quality of the linseed oil fell below the prescribed standard and PREM BALLAB I'. OELHI STATE (Bhagwati, I. ) 597 hence the case was covered by clause (i) of section 2(i).
The appellants contended that if clause (1) of section 2(i) was applicable in the present case, it excluded the applicability of clause (j) and the linseed oil cQntaining artificial dye could not be said to be adulterated under that clause. It was also urged on behalf of the appellants that,. in any event, no colouring matter was prescribed in respect of linseed· · oil and, therefore, it could not be said that there was present in the B» linseed oil sold by the appellants artificial dye "other than that prescribed in respect thereof and in amounts not within the prescribed limits of variability" so as to bring the case within the scope of clause (j) of section 2 (i). These contentions of the appellants, plausible though they may seem at first sight, are without merit and must be rejected. Our reasqns for saying so are as follows. c: It may be made clear at the out set that . the different clauses oi section 2(i) are not mutually exclusive.
They overlap one anQther and, it is quite: possible that an article of food may be found adulterated under two or more clauses of section 2(i). Take for example a case where an article of food contains a foreign · substance which affects injuriously the quality thereof and at the same time renders it unfit for human consumption. Such a case would clearly fall within D> clauses (b) and (f) of section 2(i) and the article of food would be deemed to be adulterated under both these clauses. So also, a case may arise where a colouring matter not permitted under the rules is added to an article of food and such colouring matter ·affects iqjuriously the quality of the article of food and in such a case too more than one clause of section 2(i) would be attracted, namely, clause (b) and (j).
These instances which we have given are merely by way of illustration E ·and they show that merely because an article of food is covered by one clause of section 2(i), it does not exclude the applicability of another clause of the section an article of food may be deemed to be adulterated under more than one clauses of section 2 ( i). It is, therefore, not a valid argument that because the present case falls under clause (I) of section 2(i), the applicability of clause (j) is ipso facto negatived and the case cannot come within that clause. That takes us to the question whether the present case falls within clause (j) of section 2 (i), for if it does, it would be immaterial whe-there it falls also within clause (I) of section 2 (i) and in so far as the linseed oil sold by the appellants is deemed to be 'adulterated under clause (j) of section 2 (i), the proviso to section 16(1) would not be attracted. Now, the .
report of the Public Analyst showed that the linseed oil sold by the appellants contained artificial dye and this was • clearly prohibited under the Rules. Rule 23 provided that the addition of a colouring matter to an article of food, except as specifi- ·cally permitted by the Rules, shall be prohibited. The only artificial dyes, which were permitted to be used in food, were those set out in Rule 28, and Rule 29 prohibited the use of permitted coal tar dyes in or upon any food other than those enumerated in that Rule. Linseed H oil was admittedly not one of the articles of food enumerated in Rule 29 and hence even· permitted coal tar dyes could not be added to linseed oil. It does not appear from the report of the Public Analyst as to what was the artificial dye found mixed in the sample of linseed oil sent to him but we will assume in favour of the defence that it was a permitted coal tar dye. Even so, by reason of Rules 23 and 29, it could not be added to linseed oil.
In the circumstances, the linseed oil sold by the appellants contained artificial dye which was prohibited under the Rules. The argument of the appellants was that since colouring matter was prohibited in respect of linseed oil, it could not be said that any colouring matter was prescribed in respect of linseed oil by the Rules and hence the presence of artificial dye in linseed oil did not attract the applicability of clause . (j) of section 2(i). It was • said that clause (j) of section 2(i) would be attracted only if a colouring matter is prescribed in respect of an article of food and the article is found to contain a colouring matter different from that prescribed. But if no colouring matter is prescribed, which would be the position where colouring matter is totally prohibited, it cannot be said that the article of food contains a colouring matter other than that prescribed in respect of it. This argument has the merit of ingenuity but it has no force and cannot be sustained.
When no colouring matter is permitted to be used in respect of an article of food, what is prescribed in respect of the article is "nil colouring matter" and if the article contains any colouring matter, it would be "other than that prescribed in respect" pf the article. Clause ( j) of section 2 ( i) is not merely intended to cover a case where one type of colouring matter is permitted to be used in respect of an article of food and the article con- • tains another type of colouring matter but it also takes in a ca~e where no colouring matter is permitted to be used in respect of an article of food, or in other words, it is prohibited and yet the article contains a colouring matter. There is really no difference in principle between . the two kinds of cases. Both arc equally reprehensible; in fact the latter may in conceivable cases be more serious than the former.
Where no colouring matter is permitted to be 11sed in an article of food, what is prescribed in respect of the article is that no colouring matter shall be used and if any colouring matter is present in the article in breach of that prescription, it would clearly involve violation of cl. (j) of section 2(i). The words of clause (j) of section 2(i) "other than that prescribed in respect thereof" recall to the mind similar words used in section 29(2) of the Limitation Act which makes certain provisions of the Limitation Act applicable in cases where a special or local law prescribes a period of limita. tion different from the period prescribed by the Schedule to the Limitation Act. These words of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act came up for interpretation before this Court in Vidyacharan Shukla v. Khubchand Bag he I. (') It was contended! in that case that, on a. true construction of these words, it is.
only where a period of limitation is specifically prescribed in the Schedule and a special or local law prescribes a different period of limitation, that section 29(2) would be attracted • and that section would have no application where no time limit is prescribed by the Schedule. This contention was negatived a·nd it was held by this Court that where the Schedule does not specifically prescribe any period of limitation for an application but is silent and a special or local law prescribes a period of limitation for such an (I) (1964] 6 S. C. R 129. PREM BALLAB v. DELlll STArE (Bhagwati, 1. ) 599 ~· application, it can appropriately be said that the special or local law has prescribed a period of limitation different from that prescribed in the Schedule and section 29(2) would be applicable. The analogy of this decision is very apt and it supports the construction we are inclined to place on the words "other than that prescribed in respect thereof" in clause (j) of section 2(i).
We take the view that even where the Rules prescribe that no colouring matter or artificial dye shall be usetl in respect of an article of food, clause (j) of section 2(i) • would apply if it is found that some colouring matter or artilicial dye j is present in the article. Here, the linseed oil sold by the appellants contained artificial dye despite the prohibition in the Rules and hence the case was clearly covered by clause (j) of section 2 (i) and the ! insecd oil must be deemed to be adulterated under that caluse. That would exclude the applicability of tllf proviso to section 16 (l), since the offence in this view would be one with respect to an article of food deemed to be adulterated under clause (j) of section 2(i). The appellants' plea invoking the liberality of the provision enacted in the provjso to section 16 ( 1) must, in the circumstances, be rejected and the minimum sentence of imprisonment for six months must be main-tained.
The appellants then pleaded that in any event on the facts and circumstani;:es of the present case the benefit of the Probation of • Offenders Act 1958 should be given to them and they should not be consigned to the rigours of jail life. This plea also does not impress us. It is no doubt true and that was laid down by this Court in the 1 first pronouncement made by it on the subject in ! sher Das v. Sta. te( ) that the operation of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is not excluded in case of persons found guilty of offences under the Prevenc tion of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954. To quote the words of Krishna Iyer, J. , in P. K. Tejani v. M. R. Da11ge(2) "The rehahilatory purpose of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is pervasive enough "' technically to take within its wings an offence even under the Act". But in the very same decision in !
sher Das's case (supra) this Court sounded a note of caution which must be borne in mind: "Adulteration of food is a menace to public health. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been enacted with the aim of eradicating that anti-social evil and for ensuring purity in tl1e articles of food. In view of the abovle object of the Act and the intention of the legislature as revealed by the fact that a minimum sentence of imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of rupees one thousand has been prescribed, the courts should not lightly resort to the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act in the case of persons above 2. 1 years of age found guilty of offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. .... " The imperatives of social defence must discourage the applicability of the probation principle.
No chances can be taken by society with a man whose anti-·social activites, in the guise of a respectable trade, jeopardise the health and well being of numerous innocent consumers. (1) [1972] 3 S. C. R. 65. (2) [1974] 2 S. C. R. 154. ,6 (i 0 SUPREME COURT REPO! lTS [1977] 1 S,CR, A The adulterator is a social risk, It might be dangerous to leave him free to carry on his nefarious activities by applying the probation principle to him, Moreover, it must be remembered that aduiteration is an economic offence prompted by profit motive and it is not like] y Jo lend itself easily to therapeutic treatment by the probationary measure.
It may be pointed out that the Law Commission also in its Forty Seventh Report recommended the exclusion of applicability of • 6 the probationary process in case of social and economic offences and \ presumably in response to this recommendation, the Legislature has recently amended the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 by introducing section 20AA providing that nothing contained in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply to a person convicted of an offence under the Act unless that person is under eighteen years of age This . C amendment of course would not apply in the present case but it shows the legislative trend which it would not be right for ~he court to ignore. We cannot, therefore, give the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellants and release them on probation. We accordingly confirm the conviction and sentence recorded ag;iinst the appellants and dismiss the appeal. :p. H. P.
Appeal dismissed. -\ •
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.