State of Haryana vs Jagdish

J.S. Sekhon, J. (Oral)

On 28.3.1979 Shri Kali Ram Food Inspector also with Dr. J.S. Sohi, Chief Medical Officer went to the Kiryana shop of Jagdish accused at Karnal and purchased a sample of 600 grams of jeera from the bulk of 30 Kgs. The sample was divided into three equal parts which were sealed in three separate dry and clean bottles as per rules. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis while the other was deposited with the Local Health Authority. The Public Analyst vide his report Ex. PD found the sample of jeera to be adulterated as it contained 6.9% of edible seeds other than cumin seeds against the maximum prescribed standard of 5% and also due to the Presence of two living meal worms. On receipt of this report, a complaint under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called `the Act'') was instituted against the accused respondent by Shri Kali Ram Food Inspector.

The complainant in support of its case examined himself and Dr. J.S. Sohi PW2.

The version of the accusedrespondent before the trial Court was that of simple denial and false implication. He, however, admitted the taking of sample of jeera from his shop.

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal vide his order dated 13th July, 1983 convicted the accused of the charge under Section 16 (1) (i) read with Section 7 of the Act and awarded six months, rigorous imprisonment besides imposing a fine of Rs. 1,000/ or in default of payment thereof, to farther suffer four months, rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal acquitted the accusedrespondent of the abovereferred charge by holding that the sample of jeera was not taken after proper mixing of the bulk quantity of jeera and that due to delay in examination of the sample the possibility of the sample having been infested with meal worms after its purchase by the Food Inspector cannot be ruled out.

Feeling aggrieved against the abovereferred order of acquittal of the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal, the State of Haryana has come up in appeal. Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal was admitted by a Division Bench of this Court on 24th July, 1984.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.

The leaned counsel for the appellant contents that as per definition of "adulterated" figuring in Section 2(a), the sample of jeera shall be deemed to be adulterated in view of the presence of two living meal worms and that the lower Appellate Court had taken a wrong view of the matter. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand relying upon item A. 05.09 Appendix B to the rules contended that the cumin of white jeera cannot be said to be adulterated unless the amount of insect damaged matter exceeds 5 per cent by weight. He further maintained that the possibility of the sample having been infested with meal worms after taking the sample and till it was tested cannot be ruled out and thus the accusedrespondent has not committed any offence.

The definition of adulterated article figures in clause (ia) of Section of the Act which reads as under :

"Adulterated" an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated :

(a) if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice, or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be;

(b) if the article contains any other substance which affects, or if the articles is so processed as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof;

(c) if any inferior of cheaper substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article so as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof:

(d) if any constituent of the article has been wholly or in part abstracted so as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof;

(e) if the article had been prepared, packed or kept under insanitary conditions, whereby it has become contaminated or injurious to health;

(f) if the article consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, (* * * * ) rotten, decomposed animal or, vegetable substance or is insect infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption."

A bare glance through the abovereferred definition of adulterated items leaves no doubt that it has been made in order to cover all types of adulterated food material where whereas Appendix `B'' to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 provides specific standard for each of the food items and if any item is not found upto the prescribed standard therein, then it has to be treated as adulterated. In the case of jeera, the prescribed standard in item A 05.09 of the Appendix is as under :

"CUMIN (Safed jeera) WHOLE means the dried seeds of Cuminum syminum (L). The proportion of extraneous matter including dust, stones, lumps of earth, chaff, stem or straw shall not exceed 7.0 per cent by weight. The proportion of edible seeds other than cumin seeds shall not exceed 5.0 per cent by weight."

(The amount of insect damaged matter shall not exceed 5 per cent by weight. (It shall be free from added colouring matter) Explanation :

The terms "insect damaged matter" means spices that are partially or wholly bored by insects."

A bare glance of the above said standard prescribed leaves no doubt that the amount of insect damaged matter shall not exceed 5 per cent by weight. The explanation further provides that the term `insect damaged matter means spices that are partially or wholly bored by insects Strangely enough the report Ex. PD of the Public Analyst is silent whether two living insects had rendered the sample damaged up to the extent of more than 5 per cent by weight what to say of concluding that the presence of two meal worms was injurious to health. The matter does not rest here as the sample of jeera in this case was taken on 28th March, 1979 whereas the report of the Public Analyst is silent regarding the date of its analysis but it bears the date as 13.4.1979 under the signatures of the Public Analyst. Consequently, the lower Appellate Court rightly took this date as the date of analysis especially when under Rule 4 subrule (5) of the Rules, the Public Analyst and to give a certificate forthwith to the concerned authorities about the analysis of the sample. Thus during this gap of 14 or 15 days in taking the sample and its analysis, the possibility of the sample having got infested with meal worms cannot be ruled out especially when the Food Inspector had not stated having put any preservative in the sample of jeera. Thus we find no force in this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.

We also find no force in the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Food Inspector was not required to homogeneously mix the contents of the jeera before taking its sample because the very factum that specific standards have been prescribed for different food articles would make it incumbent upon the Food Inspector to properly mix up the entire contents of that articles before taking a sample especially when the seller had to be made liable for the sale of adulterated item of food. Consequently, the presence of 6.9 per cent of edible seeds other than cumin seeds as against the maximum prescribed standard of 5 percent may be the result of not homogeneously mixing up the entire bulk of 30 kgs. of jeera before taking its sample especially when there is no indication from the report of the Public Analyst that the abovereferred edible seeds were heavier than the cumin seeds.

Consequently, for the reasons recorded above, no interference is called for in the well reasons recorded order of the lower Appellate Court in this appeal against acquittal. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.