State of Haryana vs Om Prakash

S.D.Bajaj J.

Sample of Zeera obtained by Government Food Inspector from the respondent around 12.11 p.m. on November 23, 1985 was found to contain 16 living meal worms and thereby adulterated. On being prosecuted for it under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the accused pleaded `not guilt'' to charge framed against him in this regard and claimed to be tried. Vide it impugned judgment dated November4, 1986, learned trial court acquitted the accused. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the state of Haryana has filed Criminal Appeal No. 431DBA of 1987 in this Court.

We have heard Shri D.S. Bishnoi, DAG, Haryana for the appellant State, Sarvshri Sudharshan Goel and Raghbir Chaudhary, Advocates for the respondent accused and have pursued the entire relevant material on record very carefully.

The reasoning offered by the learned trial court in paragraphs 7 to 10 of its impugned judgment for reaching the conclusion that the sample of Zeera obtained by the Government Food Inspector from the accused on November 22, 1985 was neither insect infested not unfit for human consumption fully justifies its finding of `not guilty'' returned in favour of the respondent. It reads, "(7) The standard of Zeera is prescribed at Item No. A 05 09 of the Appendix B of Prevention of food Adulteration Rules, 1955 according to which the amount of insect damaged matter shall not exceed 5 per cent by weight, it shall be free from added colouring matter, the proportion of extraneous matter shall not exceed 7 per cent by weight and the proportion of edible seeds shall not exceed 5 per cent by weight. The report Ex. PD of the Public Analyst shows that the sample was in accordance with the standard prescribed at Item No. A.05.09 of Appendix B of the Rules 1955. The only defect pointed out by the Analyst is that the sample contained one weevil and 16 living meal worms. According to the definition of adulterated given in Section 2(ia)(f), if the article consists wholly or in part any filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption, then such an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated. It is not the case of the prosecution that the food article recovered from the possession of the accused consisted wholly or in part any filthy, putrid rotten decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance. There is also no allegation or opinion of the Analyst that the sample was otherwise unfit for human consumption. Thus, the only question that remains for consideration is whether the sample of zeera taken from the possession of accused was "insectinfested" or not.

It has authoritatively been held in State v. Puran Mal, 1985(2) Recent Criminal Report 52 : AIR 1985 Supreme Court 41, that it is not possible to hold that a worm and an insect are the same. In M/s Narkeklange Roller Flour Mills and another v. The Corporation of Calcutta, 1973 Food Adulteration Cases (Calcutta) 257, the difference between insect and worm was noted as under :

"Held that the word "insect" is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as "small invertebrate segmented animal having head, thorax, abdomen and three pairs of thoracic wings". The word "worm" in the same dictionary is defined as "kinds of invertebrate limbless or apparently limbless creeping animal such as are segmented in rings or are parasite in the intestines or tissues". There is, therefore, a good deal of difference between worm and insect and a sample of food becomes adulterated only when it is insect infested. In the present sample, however, worms were found to be present and that in our view, does not satisfy the requirements of the definition of adulterated under Section 2 of the Act."

Thus, in view of the law laid down in the above rulings the presence of worms in itself does not make the sample adulterated. In the instant case, the presence of 16 living meal worms does not make the sample of zeera insect infested. Since the report of the Public Analyst does not state that zeera was unfit for human consumption, therefore, the presence of worms in the zeera taken from the possession of accused, does into prove that the sample was adulterated.

Now I take up the case of the presence of insects. The report of the Public Analyst Ex. PD shows that the insect damaged seeds were found to be `nil'' and only one weevil was found in the sample of zeera analysed by him on 28th November, 1985. The expression "insect infested" was construed by his Lordship in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shri Kacheroo Mal, 1975 Food Adulteration Cases (Supreme Court) 253 and it was observed as under :

"That the expression "insect infested" was not defined in the Prevention of Food adulteration Act and has therefore, to be given its ordinary meaning. The word "insect"appears to have been derived from the Latin word "infestare" which means to assail or molest. According to Oxford English Dictionary (VolumeV at page 259) the word "infest" means, "To attack, assail annoy or trouble (a person or thing) in a persistent manner," "to visit persistently or in large number for purposes of destruction or plunder." "to swarm in or about, so as to be troublesome" In the same Dictionary the word "infestation,'' is stated to mean. "The action of infesting assailing harassing or persistently molesting". It is also mentioned that the word is now used especially for "insect infested", if it has been attacked by insects in swarms or numbers. It however seems to us that there is no justification for the view that insect infestation would only continue to long as the insects continue to be alive. If an article of food is attack in insects by large swarms or numbers and for some reason those insects die, the mere fact that the article of food has no longer living insects but has dead insects will not change its character of being "insect infested".

Furthermore, it was observed in Wazir Chand v. State, 1974 F.A.C. Delhi 264, that there has to be a large number of insects present in an article before it can be said to be insect infested. Presence of few insects will not make the article of food come under the mischief of "insect infested". In the instant case, since only one weevil was observed by the Public Analyst, therefore, in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid rulings, presence of on insect will not make the article of food come under the mischief of "insect infested". In this context, it would be also fruitful to cite New Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Chaman, 198 (i) F.A.C. Delhi (Delhi) 272, wherein it was observed that "presence of three living insects in the counterpart of the sample can by no stretch of reasoning be called to be "insect infested". In the present case also, presence of only one weevil in the counter part of the sample, can by no stretch of reasoning be called to be insect infested.

The Govt. Food Inspector has cited State v. Dinesh, 1986(2) Recent Criminal Reports 476 : 1986(1) Food Adulteration Cases (Delhi) 194, and has argued that if the Food Inspector has not specifically mentioned that the sample was otherwise unfit for human consumption or was insectinfested, the sample cannot be held to be not adulterated merely on this ground. There is no dispute with this proposition of law laid down in the above cited ruling. However, as I have already discussed above, the presence of only one weevil in the sample analysed by the Public Analyst would not take the sample within the mischief of expression "insect infested".

We find ourselves in perfect agreement with the reasoning aforesaid and therefore, affirm the finding of not guilty returned by the learned trial court on its basis. In result the state appeal is rendered wholly without merit and is consequently dismissed.