The Public Prosecutor vs Nalam Subba Rao

Munikanniah, J.—In this appeal against acquittal, an argument is made before, this Court that the view taken fey the Additional District Munsif-Magistrate, Repalie, that an offence u/s 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is not committed by the Accused, is faulty, It is urged by the learned Public Prosecutor that the Bengal eram flour purchased and sampled for the purpose of test showed a. mixture of that powder with pea powder, and that a compound which is the combination of these two powders found in that manner should be taken to be adulterated. The answer to this is that the word "adulterated" as used in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is net meant to connote mere mixing of things or combining ot substances, but the admixturei of articles of food in such a manner as to be capable of production the effects enumerated in Clauses (a) to (I) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of these, the relevant sub-clauses which apply to the present case are the following which defines the expression "adulterated".

2(1) "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 article is so processed as to affect, injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof:

(c) if any interior or cheaper substance, has been substituted wholly or in part for the article so as be affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof.

In accordance) with these provisions, the substitution of art inferior or cheaper substance even in part for the article which is sought to be sold so as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof, is alone considered as capable of causing adulteration. Similarly, when the article contains any other substance which is calculated to affect, injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof the article becomes "adulterated." Under Clause (a), an article supplied by the vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser is considered as "adulterated" only when it operates to the prejudice of the vendee. So the gravamen of the charge, when a person is accused of adulterating an article of food, is that such adulteration prejudices the vendee or injuriously affects the nature, substance or quality of the article of food Such being the case, it is not always that the mixture of articles of food the invariably maka an offender liable for an offence under j Sea 7(1) on the ground that there was sale of an adulterated food.

Bearing these principles in mind, the facts of the present case have to be examined. In the instant case what is purchased by P. W. 1, the Food Inspector, has been sold to him as Bengal Gram: Flour. On an analysis it has been found to contain 50 per cent of pea (battani) powder. It is in evidence that the pea powder so mixed with Bengal gram flour is a costlier substance There is no reliable evidence to show that this paa powder affects injuriously; nor could it be said that it prejudicially affects the purchaser, P. W. 1, the Food Inspector, deposed that he did not know that the pea powder was costlier than Bengal gram flour, though he is prepared to hint in a manner that pea powder is injurious. It cannot be said that it has been sufficiently brought out that the pea powder, when mixed with Bengal gram, is injurious or injuriously affects the nature, substance or quality of the Bengal gram powder. The lack of such evidence makes it impossible to bring the mixing of these powders as adulteration falling Under Clause (c) or Clause (y). As for the bringing oft the present case Under Clause (a), there is no evidence to show that the purchaser has been prejudicially affected. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the lower court that no offence has been made out against the accused u/s 2(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is unassailable.

In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.