Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 541-542 OF 2014
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS.
4797-4798 OF 2011)
RUPAK KUMAR …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. …RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD,J.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order
JUDGMENT
whereby his prayer for quashing the order taking
cognizance under Section 16(1)(a) of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and issuing
process has been declined.
Short facts giving rise to the present
special leave petitions are that when the
Page 1
2
petitioner was posted as the Superintendent of
District Jail, Bihar Sharif, the Food Inspector
visited the jail premises and collected samples of
various materials including Haldi and Rice. Those
articles were stored for consumption of the
prisoners. The samples so collected were sent for
examination and analysis and, according to the
report of the Public Analyst, Haldi and Rice were
not found in conformity with the prescribed
standard and, therefore, held to be adulterated.
Accordingly, two separate prosecution reports were
submitted alleging commission of an offence under
Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took
JUDGMENT
cognizance of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)
th
of the Act and by order dated 18 of March,
2006 directed for issuance of process in both the
cases. The petitioner assailed both the orders in
separate revision applications filed before the
Sessions Judge; but both were dismissed.
Thereafter, the petitioner preferred two separate
Page 2
3
applications, being Criminal Miscellaneous No.
15527 of 2010 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 15471
of 2010 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure before the High Court. The High Court,
by the orders impugned in the present special
leave petitions, has dismissed both the criminal
miscellaneous applications. It is in these
circumstances the petitioner has filed the present
special leave petitions.
Leave granted.
Mr. Nagendra Rai, senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant raises a very short
JUDGMENT
point. He submits that the appellant at the
relevant time was the Superintendent of Jail and
food items which have been found to be adulterated
were not stored for sale but were meant for
consumption of the inmates. He submits that
according to the prosecution report, these food
items were not stored for sale and, therefore, the
Page 3
4
allegations made do not come within the mischief
of Section 16(1)(a) of the Act.
We have bestowed our consideration to the
submission advanced and we find substance in the
same. Section 7 of the Act, inter alia, prohibits
manufacture and sale of certain articles of food,
the same reads as follows:
“Section 7. Prohibitions of
manufacture, sale, etc. of certain
articles of food. – No person shall
himself or by any person on his
behalf manufacture for sale, or
store, sell or distribute-
(i) any adulterated food;
(ii) any misbranded food;
(iii)any article of food for the
JUDGMENT
sale of which a licence is
prescribed, except in
accordance with the conditions
of the licence;
(iv) any article of food the sale
of which is for the time being
prohibited by the Food
(Health) Authority in the
interest of public health;
(v) any article of food in
contravention of any other
provision of this Act or of
any rule made thereunder; or
Page 4
5
(vi) any adulterant.
Explanation-For the purposes of
this section, a person shall be
deemed to store any adulterated
food or misbranded food or any
article of food referred to in
clause (iii) or clause (iv) or
clause (v) if he stores such food
for the manufacture therefrom of
any article of food for sale.”
From a plain reading of the aforesaid
provision, it is evident that Section 7 prohibits
a person to ‘manufacture for sale’ or ‘store’ or
‘sell’ or ‘distribute’, inter alia, any
adulterated food. Contravention of Section 7 by
any person is punishable under Section 16 of the
Act. Section 10 of the Act talks about the power
of Food Inspector and under this Section, he is
empowered to take sample of any article of food
JUDGMENT
from any person selling such article. It is apt
to reproduce Section 10(1) and 10(2), which read
as follows:
“ Section 10. Powers of food
inspectors. - (1) A Food Inspector
shall have power-
(a) to take samples of any
article of food from-
Page 5
6
(i) any person selling such
article;
(ii) any person who is in
the course of conveying,
delivering or preparing to
deliver such article to a
purchaser or consignee;
(iii) a consignee after
delivery of any such
article to him; and
(b) to send such sample for
analysis to the public analyst
for the local area within which
such sample has been taken;
(c) with the previous approval
of the Local (Health) Authority
having jurisdiction in the
local area concerned, or with
the previous approval of the
Food (Health) Authority, to
prohibit the sale of any
article of food in the interest
of public health.
Explanation-For the purposes of
sub-clause (iii) of clause (a),
“consignee” does not include a
person who purchases or receives
any article of food for his own
consumption.
JUDGMENT
(2) Any food inspector may enter
and inspect any place where any
article of food is manufactured, or
stored for sale, or stored for the
manufacture of any other article of
food for sale, or exposed or
exhibited for sale or where any
adulterant is manufactured or kept,
and take samples of such article of
food or adulterant for analysis:
Page 6
7
Provided that no sample of any
article of food, being primary
food, shall be taken under this
sub-section if it is not intended
for sale as such food.”
A conjoint reading of the aforesaid
provisions makes it clear that the Food Inspector
has the power to take sample of any article of
food from any person selling such article under
sub-section (1) whereas sub-section (2) confers on
him the power to enter and inspect any place where
any article of food is manufactured, stored or
exposed for sale and take samples of such articles
of food for analysis. Section 16 provides for
penalties. Section 16(1)(a)(i) and 16(1)(a)(ii),
which are relevant for the purpose read as
follows:
JUDGMENT
“ -(1)
Section 16. Penalties.
Subject to the provisions of
sub-section (IA) if any person-
(a) whether by himself or by any
other person on his behalf, imports
into India or manufactures for sale
or stores, sells or distributes any
article of food—
(i) which is adulterated within the
meaning of sub-clause (m) of
clause (ia) of section 2 or
Page 7
8
misbranded within the meaning
of clause (ix) of that section
or the sale of which is
prohibited under any provision
of this Act or any rule made
thereunder or by an order of
the Food (Health) Authority;
(ii) other than an article of food
referred to in sub-clause (i),
in contravention of any of the
provisions of this Act or of
any rule made thereunder ; or
xxx xxx xxx”
According to this section any person, who by
himself or by any other person on his behalf,
manufactures for sale or stores or sells any
adulterated article is liable to be punished.
In the present case, according to the
prosecution, the appellant, a Superintendent of
JUDGMENT
Jail, had stored Rice and Haldi and, therefore,
his act comes within the mischief of Section 7 and
16 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid, what
needs to be decided is as to whether the
expression ‘store’ as used in Section 7 and
Section 16 of the Act would mean storage
simplicitor or storage for sale. We have referred
to the provisions of Section 7, Section 10 and
Page 8
9
Section 16 of the Act and from their conjoint
reading, it will appear that the Act is intended
to prohibit and penalise the sale of any
adulterated article of food. In our opinion, the
term ‘store’ shall take colour from the context
and the collocation in which it occurs in Section
7 and 16 of the Act. Applying the aforesaid
principle, we are of the opinion, that ‘storage’
of an adulterated article of food other than for
sale does not come within the mischief of Section
16 of the Act. In view of the authoritative
pronouncement of this Court in the case of
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Laxmi Narain
Tandon, (1976) 1 SCC 546, this submission does not
need further elaboration. In the said case it has
JUDGMENT
been held as follows:
“ 14 . From a conjoint reading of the
above referred provisions, it will
be clear that the broad scheme of
the Act is to prohibit and penalise
the sale, or import, manufacture,
storage or distribution for sale of
any adulterated article of food.
The terms “store” and “distribute”
take their colour from the context
Page 9
10
and the collocation of words in
which they occur in Sections 7 and
16. “Storage” or “distribution” of
an adulterated article of food for
a purpose other than for sale does
not fall within the mischief of
this section…………………”
In the case in hand, it is not the allegation
that the appellant had stored Haldi and Rice for
sale. Therefore, in our opinion, the allegations
made do not constitute any offence and, hence, the
prosecution of the appellant for an offence under
Section 16(1)(a) of the Act shall be an abuse of
the process of the Court.
JUDGMENT
In the result we allow these appeals, set
aside the impugned orders and quash the
appellant’s prosecution in both the cases.
………………………………………………………………J
(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)
Page 10
11
………………………………………………………………J
(PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)
NEW DELHI,
MARCH 04, 2014.
JUDGMENT
Page 11