Mohinder Pal vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.

This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated February 4, 1985, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner by the trial court for the offence under S. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, the Act).

The facts giving rise to this petition can be stated as under :

On 16th July, 1981, Dr. Sukhdev Singh Mangat in his capacity as Food Inspector visited the shop of the petitioner Mohinder Paul at Mullanpur and purchased 1500 gms. of Badana sweet for analysis. Due formalities prescribed under the law were complied with. One part of the sample of Badana as sent to the Public Analyst who reported it to be adulterated. A complaint was accordingly filed for the prosecution of the petitioner under S. 16 of the Act. The petitioner did not deny the taking of the sample of Badana from his possession. The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that since no standard of quality or purity of Badana has been provided by the Act or the rules framed thereunder, the case does not come within the mischief of S. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. The learned counsel for the State nothing to repel this contention. Admittedly, no standard of quality or purity of Badana sweet has been prescribed by the Act or the rules framed thereunder and as such offence allegedly committed by the petitioner shall not come within the purview of subclauses (c) to (i) or (m) of clause (ia) of Section 2 and therefore, he cannot be held guilty of the offence under Section 16 of the Act. The matter is otherwise not res integra.

A single Judge of this Court, follows the ratio of M.V. Krishnan Nambissan v. State of Kerala AIR 1966 SC 1676 in Shanti Bassi and another v. State of Punjab 1976(1) FAC 241, quashed the proceedings in which the petitioners Shanti Bassi and another were prosecuted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act for mixing adulterated rapeseed oil in Vanaspati Ghee, of which the said oil was one of the constituents on a finding that no standard was prescribed under the Act in regard to the quality of rapeseed.

Sandhawalia, C.J. in Lekh Raj v. the State 1980 (II) FAC 166, while dealing with a case in which fruitcream was said to be adulterated following M.V. Krishnan Nambissan''s case (supra) and Hari Shankar Banerji v. Corporation of Calcutta, 1973, Cri. L.J. 1264; and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kanshi Ram, 1972 FAC 41, held that fruitcream not being icecream and no standard for fruitcream having been prescribed, no yardstick was available lay which to judge the purity or otherwise of the product taken from the petitioner therein and in the absence of a prescribed standard, no conviction was possible, both on principle or on precedent.

In view of the above, I unhesitatingly hold that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence under S. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, I, therefore, allow the revision petition and quash his conviction and sentence.