M/s. Amrit and Company vs State of Punjab and another

Mukul Mudgal, C.J.—This order shall dispose of CRM-M No. 35297 of 1999 and CRM-M No. 900 of 2005 as they both arise out of a common complaint filed against the petitioners being the seller and manufacturer of Bharat Iodized Salt. Vide orders dated 6.1.2005, CRM-M No. 900 of 2005 filed by the manufacturer was ordered to be heard along with CRM-M No. 35297 of 1999.

This matter has been sent to the Division Bench by an order of reference dated 07.10.2004. The learned Singly Judge doubted the correctness of the view expressed by two learned Single Benches in Baldev Raj v. State of Punjab, 2002 (3) RCR (Cri) 483 and Amarjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004 (2) RCR (Cri) 763 . In these cases it was held that Salt was a flavouring agent covered by Rule 43(5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules'') and not food and thus held not to attract the provisions of Rule 43 of the said rules. In case of Baldev Raj (supra) the label mentioned ''Shudh Khadya Namak'' while in the second case the label was ''Refined Iodized Salt Pure Free Following''.

In this regard Section 2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') which defines food would be necessary to be reproduced:-

Section 2 "Food" means any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes:-

(a) any article which ordinarily enters into, or is used in the composition of preparation of, human food,

(b) any flavouring matter or condiments, and

(c) any other article which the Central Government may, having regard to its use, nature, substance or quality, declared by notification in the official Gazette as food for the purposes of this Act;)

It would be seen in sub clause (b) of sub section (v) ''flavouring matter'' and ''condiments'' have been included in the definition of food.

Rule 43 of the Act reads as follows:-

Notice of addition, admixture or deficiency in food - (1) Every advertisement and every price or trade list or label for an article of food which contains an addition, admixture or deficiency shall describe the food as containing such addition, admixture and shall also specify the nature and quantity of such addition, admixture or deficiency. No such advertisement or label attached to the container of the Food shall contain any words which might imply that the food is pure:

Provided.....................................

(5) Nothing contained in the rule shall apply to the case of sweets, confectionery, biscuit''s, bakery products, processed fruits, aerated water, vegetables and flavouring agents.

In the two judgments of two Single Benches mentioned above it was held that salt would be ''flavouring agent'' and ''not food''. The learned Single Judges did not consider the import of clause (b) of Section 2(v) wherein flavouring matter has been included in the definition of food and as mentioned above, held that salt was not food. In our opinion this cannot be the correct interpretation of the statutory provision. The word food has been defined in extremely wide terms. In State of Tamil Nadu Vs. R. Krishnamurthy, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

According to the definition of ''food'' which we have extracted above, for the purposes of the Act, any article used food or drink for human consumption and any article which ordinarily enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of human food is ''food''. It is not necessary that it is intended for human consumption or for preparation of human food. If is notorious that there are, unfortunately, in out vast country, large segments of population, who, living as they do, far beneath ordinary subsistence level, are ready to consume that which may otherwise be though as not fit for human consumption. In order to keep body and soul together, they are often tempted to buy and use as food, articles which are adultered and even unfit for human consumption but which pretence that they are intended to be used for purposes other than human consumption.

(emphasis supplied)

To the similar effect is the judgment in Pyarali K. Tejani Vs. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange and Others, . Undoubtedly salt is an additive to make food palatable and enters into food and is thus fully covered by the above judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court defining food. Thus, the premise on which the learned Single Judges founded their judgments does not appear to be sanctioned by Section 2(v)(b) and its interpretation by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Which brings us to the next question, which is ''whether this would mean that the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judges was correct or was that also wrong?'' In our opinion even if it is held that salt is food yet in this case the alleged mislabeling would be saved by proviso (5) to Rule 43 because salt is essentially a ''flavouring agent''.

The matter can be looked at from another angle also.

The relevant portion of the report of the Public Analyst reads as follows:-

I further certify that I have caused to be analysed the aforementioned sample and declare the result of the analysis to be as follows:-

Description: The contents of the sample received in a sealed packet printed as New Triple Refined Iodized Salt BSRL Bharat Salt. Pure Free Flowing Ingredients; Highly pure salt and permitted Iodine (30 ppm min when packed) anti caking and free flowing agents a health care production from Well Brines Chemicals Ltd., Batch No. IF & UP-II Packed 11/97. Nett. Wt. 1 Kg. Manufactured by Wellbrines Chemicals Ltd. Salt City, Chopadava, Gujarat Road, Office 33-D, North Cresent Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-17.

Physical appearance

:

No iron filling detected.

Iodine as Iodide

=

Absent

Iodine as Iodate

=

Present

Iodine P.P.M.

=

44.0 P.P.M. On dry wt. Basis

NaCl dry basis

=

96.97% by wt. on dry basis

Water solute matter other than NaCl - 2.49% by wt. on dry basis

+

+

Moisture

=

4.74% By weight

Water Insolute matter

=

0.56 by weight on dry basis.

And am of the opinion that the label declares the product as ''Bharat Salt Pure Free Flowing'' whereas under the provisions of Rule 43, Salt containing anti caking agent and free flowing agents and Iodine should not contain any words which might imply that the food is pure. The product is, therefore, misbranded.

The crux of the allegation is that the petitioner had added an anti caking agent which admittedly was added to make the salt free flowing. The label itself declares the product as Bharat Salt Pure Free Flowing. It is thus evident that the additions of anti caking agent is only to ensure the smooth flow of salt and cannot detract from the purity of the salt. Further more, it is not the allegation of the respondents that the anti caking agent causes any sort of impurity. A careful perusal of the report of Public Analyst shows that the word ''Pure'' is used to describe ''Free Flowing'' and not in the description of salt.

In this view of the matter it is evident that the allegations if proved are not found to be in violation of the Rules and accordingly the application is allowed. Proceedings are accordingly quashed. However, we find that no analysis of Section 2(ix), 17 and Rules 14, 16, 37 and 41 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules is required to decide the present case.