Jeet Kumar Anand vs State of Punjab

S.S. Grewal, J.—This petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, relates to quashment of complaint (Annexure P-1), filed by Dhani Ram, Government Food Inspector, as well as subsequent proceedings taken thereunder, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'').

Brief facts, as emerge, from the complaint (Annexure P-1) are that on 31st August, 1988, Dr. Hoop Lal with Dr. Parmodh Chadha went to the shop of the Petitioner situated at Mandi Road, Jalandhar City. The Petitioner was found present there and he had kept about 35 kgs. of Haldi powder in his shop for sale for human consumption. Dr. Roop Lal purchased 600 grams of Haldi powder from the Petitioner on payment of Rs. 6. The Haldi powder so purchased was divided into three equal parts, and, was put into three dry and clean bottles. Each sample, bottle was labelled, stoppered and wrapped in a strong thick paper and secured by means of strong twine. A paper slip duly signed, by Local Health Authority bearing serial No. 37669 was pasted on each sample bottle and the said bottle was again fastened by means of strong twine. Each sample bottle was sealed with the seal bearing monogram RL at six distinct points. The signature of the Petitioner were obtained on sample bottles partly on the slip and partly on the wrapper paper. One such sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst with sealed cover along with form VII bearing the seal impression of the seal used. The remaining two sample bottle along with two copies of memo on form No VII were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Jalandhar on the same day. Report of the Public Analyst revealed that the sample con-tamed five dead insects and two excreta. Thereafter, the complaint u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was filed against the Petitioner.

Counsel for the parties were heard.

On behalf of the Petitioner it was mainly contended that as per report of the Public Analyst, the contents of the sample contained five dead insects and two excreta and as such the sample of Haldi powder taken in the instant case cannot be said to be insect infested, Nor, there is any mention in the report that article from which the sample was taken was otherwise unfit for human consumption, and as such the article of food (Haldi) cannot be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of Section 2(1)(f) of the Act.

As held in Dhanraj''s case 1972 FAC 335 Sub-clause (f) of Section 2(1) of the Act was construed as follow:

The word ''otherwise'' in Sub-clause (f) of Clause (1) off Section 2 does suggest that all the adjectives used earlier refer to the quality of the article being unfit for human consumption. To fall under that sub-clause an article of food must be unfit for human consumption because it consists wholly, or, in part of any filthy, putrid, disgusting, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal, or, vegetable substance, or, because it is insect-infested, or, on account of any other cause.

The Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo Mal 1975 (II) FAC 223, while dealing with the scope of Sub-clause (f) of Section 2(1) of the Act held as under:

The adjectives "filthy", "putrid", "disgusting", "decomposed", "rotten"..."insect-infested" refer to the quality of the article and furnish the indicia for presuming the article to be unfit for human consumption. But the presumption may not be conclusive in all cases, irrespective of the character of the article and the nature and extent of the vice afflicting it. This is particularly so, where an article is found to be "insect-infested".

Different view was taken by the apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia 1979 (II) FAC 218, where it was observed as under:

On the plain language of the definition of section, it is quite apparent that the words ''or is otherwise unfit for human consumption'' are disjunctive of the rest of the words preceding them. It relates to a distinct and separate class altogether. It seems to us that the last clause ''or is otherwise unfit for human consumption'' is residuary provision, which, would apply to a case not covered by, or, falling squarely within the clauses preceding it. If the phrase is to be read disjunctively the mere proof of the article of food being ''filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed...or insect-infested'' would be per se sufficient to bring the case within the purview of the word ''adulterated'', as defined in Sub-clause (f) and it would not he necessary in such a case to prove further that the article of food was unfit for human consumption.

This view was followed in subsequent authority of the Apex Court in State Delhi Administration v. Puran Mal 1985 (1) FAC 161, where it was observed as under:

The true meaning of Section 2(1)(f) has been brought out in Municipal Corporation, of Delhi v. Tek Chand'' Bathia (supra) and the conclusion that it would not be necessary in such a case to prove further that the article of food was ''unfit for human consumption'' is a correct statement of the law.

Facts of Puran Mal''s case (supra) are quite similar to those of the case in hand. In para 15 of the report in Puran Mal''s case (supra) it was observed as follows:

Even if the nine worms found by the Public Analyst in the sample are considered to be insects, the certificate of the Public Analyst does not support the case of the prosecution that the lal mirchi powder was adulterated, for the Public Analyst has not expressed his opinion that the lal mirchi powder was either worm-infested, or, insect-infected, or that on account of the presence of the meal worms the sample was unfit for human consumption. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not established by any satisfactory evidence the requirement of Section 2(1)(f) of the Act.

The authority in the aforecited case is on all fours and is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

In the instant case from the perusal of report of the Public Analyst referred to above, it is quite apparent that there is no mention in the report of the Public Analyst that the sample sent for analysis was filthy, putrid, disgusting, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or being insect-infested. Nor it is mentioned in the said report that the sample of Haldi sent for analysis in the instant case was unfit for human consumption. Thus, even if the phrase "fit for human consumption" is to be read disjunctively, in the absence of the opinion of the Public Analyst that sample of food sent in this case was filthy, putried, disgusting, rotten, decomposed or insect-infested or otherwise unfit for human consumption, it cannot be prima facie held that the sample of Haldi powder taken in the instant case, from the present Petitioner was adulterated, within the meaning of Section 2(1)(f) of the Act. Besides, the report of the Public Analyst does not reveal that uric acid test, or, any other reliable test was conducted in order to Rive a definite opinion that the sample of Haldi powder sent for analysis in the present case was insect-infested or on account of presence of insects the same was unfit for human consumption.

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint (Annexure P-1) and consequent proceedings taken thereunder pending in the trial Court at Jalandhar cannot be legally sustained and the same are directed to be quashed and this petition is accordingly allowed.