- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
The Food Inspector, Bhimavaram v. Koppuravari Venkateswarulu .
Structured Summary of the Court Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This Criminal Appeal was filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the respondent-accused in C.C. No. 214 of 1991 by the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram. The matter came before a Division Bench by reference from a learned single Judge pursuant to an order dated 1-9-93. The reference arose because two earlier decisions of Justice Y. Bhaskara Rao (K. Kameswara Rao v. State of A.P and Food Inspector, Karimnagar v. Kothakonda Shankar) had held that sending food samples in polythene bags violated Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, resulting in acquittals.
The central factual matrix before the trial magistrate was that the Food Inspector had taken samples that were sent for analysis, and the trial magistrate found the respondent guilty on the evidence but acquitted him solely because of an alleged violation of Rule 14 (relying on the aforementioned decisions). The Division Bench examined whether the samples had to be sent only in bottles or jars, or whether “other suitable containers” (including polythene/plastic) could satisfy Rule 14, and whether procedural requirements of Rules 15–17 had been complied with. The trial court had found procedural compliance, and the prosecution established the use of Red Tartrazine (a colouring matter not permitted by the Rules).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a polythene/plastic container can constitute an "other suitable container" under Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules when it is clean, dry, capable of being closed sufficiently tight, and carefully sealed.
- Whether the earlier decisions (K. Kameswara Rao v. State of A.P and Food Inspector, Karimnagar v. Kothakonda Shankar) holding that samples sent in polythene bags violate Rule 14 correctly interpreted the Rule.
- Whether the mere possibility of tampering with a polythene container precludes the prosecution where the trial court has found procedural requirements complied with and no defence of tampering was raised at trial.
Arguments of the Parties
Prosecution (State)
- The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Rule 14 prescribes three modes of sending samples: in dry bottles, in jars, or in "other suitable containers."
- The Public Prosecutor contended that the words “other suitable container” include polythene bags/plastic containers and that the previous decisions holding otherwise require reconsideration.
- It was represented (and assumed by the court) that the statutory requirements of Rules 15, 16 and 17 were complied with in the case before the trial court.
Respondent (Accused) / Defence
- Counsel for the respondent (Mr. B. Nalin Kumar) relied on a number of Punjab & Haryana High Court decisions and a Bombay High Court decision which had held that sending samples in paper packets/original packing was violative of Rule 14; these authorities were invoked to resist conviction.
- The respondent's counsel argued that "suitable container" should be read to mean a container of the same type or category as a bottle or jar — i.e., a hard substance difficult to tamper with — and that polythene/plastic bags were easily tampered with.
- The defence (as reflected in the earlier decisions relied upon) emphasized that samples sent in paper packets or original packing did not meet the sealing and container requirements of Rule 14.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| K. Kameswara Rao v. State of A.P (1990 A.P.L.J (Crl) 189) — Justice Y. Bhaskara Rao | Held that sending samples in polythene bags violated Rule 14 (samples must be in bottles or jars). | The Division Bench concluded this decision did not reflect the correct position of law and overruled it, finding Rule 14 contemplates "other suitable containers" and does not exclude plastic containers that meet Rule 14's requirements. |
| Food Inspector, Karimnagar v. Kothakonda Shankar (1991 A.P.L.J (Crl) 116) | Held that Rule 14 required collection in suitable bottles and that use of polythene bags was violative. | The Division Bench overruled this decision as based on an incorrect comprehension of Rule 14 and not applicable where containers otherwise satisfy the Rule's requirements. |
| Sham Lal v. State of Punjab (1986 (2) F.A.C 245) | Held that samples sent in original packing (packets) or paper packing violated the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and were fatal to prosecution. | The court treated this and similar decisions as fact-based authorities where the containers/packs did not meet Rule 14's requirements; they do not govern cases where a suitable, clean, dry and properly sealed container was used. |
| Sardari Lal v. State of Punjab (1986 (1) F.A.C 87) | Found samples taken and sent in paper packets violated Rule 14. | Court noted this was a factual finding of non-compliance and not authority for rejecting plastic containers that otherwise meet Rule 14. |
| Nasib Chand v. The State of Punjab (1986 (1) F.A.C 310) | Samples divided and packed in paper packets — held violative of Rule 14. | Again treated as a decision based on failure to meet Rule 14's sealing/container requirements; not applicable to properly sealed suitable containers. |
| Pritam Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh (1986 (1) F.A.C 313) | Samples sent in paper packets and not in sealed containers — violative of Rule 14. | Court observed this as fact-specific authority of non-compliance rather than a categorical prohibition of non-bottle containers that satisfy Rule 14. |
| Chand Ram v. The State of Punjab (1986 (2) F.A.C 1) | Court intervened where incriminating article was taken and sent in paper packets contrary to Rule 14. | Used as an example of cases where factual non-compliance (insufficient sealing/unsuitable packing) justified interference; distinguished from cases with compliant containers. |
| Shiv Dutt Raj v. The State of Punjab (1986 (3) F.A.C 13) | Samples sent in paper packets instead of a container — held violative of Rule 14. | Court treated it as another fact-specific ruling of non-compliance; not authority to hold plastic containers per se invalid where Rule 14's conditions are met. |
| State of Maharashtra v. Prabhudas Atalma Baktani (1986 (3) F.A.C 221) | Held that samples must be sent in dry and clean containers; observed plastic bags could be easily tampered with and were not contemplated. | The Division Bench acknowledged the case but observed it involved samples taken in plastic paper not properly closed or sealed; the present court focused on whether containers that do meet Rule 14 can be plastic and found they can be. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began with a textual analysis of Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, which prescribes that samples "shall be taken in clean dry-bottles or jars or in other suitable containers, which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation, or in the case of dry substance, entrance of moisture and shall be carefully sealed."
The court identified the operative requirements embedded in Rule 14:
- The container must be clean and dry;
- It must be a "suitable" container;
- It must be closable sufficiently tight to prevent leakage and evaporation;
- For dry substances it must prevent entrance of moisture;
- It must be carefully sealed.
From this textual reading, the court reasoned that the ordinary meaning of "container" — that which contains — does not exclude a container made of polythene or plastic. The court emphasized that nothing in the language of Rule 14 limits "other suitable containers" to bottles or jars or to hard materials. Therefore, a polythene/plastic container that satisfies the enumerated requirements of Rule 14 (clean, dry, capable of being closed sufficiently tight and carefully sealed) falls within the Rule.
The court also considered the surrounding provisions (Rules 15–17) concerning labeling, packing, sealing and dispatching of samples, and noted no contention that these had not been complied with; accordingly the court proceeded on the assumption of compliance with those rules.
The Division Bench reviewed the prior case law relied upon by the respondent. It concluded that many of those authorities (predominantly from the Punjab & Haryana High Court and one from Bombay High Court) were fact-specific: in those cases samples were sent in original packing, paper packets or plastic paper that were not duly sealed or otherwise did not satisfy the Rule 14 requirements. Accordingly, such decisions cannot be read as establishing a categorical rule that only bottles or jars are permissible.
The court addressed the submission that polythene bags are easily tampered with. It rejected the notion that mere possibility of tampering should automatically defeat the prosecution where trial evidence shows compliance with the Rules and where no defence was raised that the container was unsuitable, not tightly closed, or not carefully sealed. The court noted that allegations of tampering are matters for the defence during trial and cannot be the sole basis for acquittal where procedural compliance and substantive evidence of offence exist.
Having found that the magistrate had positively found procedural compliance and that the prosecution had established the use of an unpermitted colouring matter (Red Tartrazine), the court concluded that the prior appellate decisions to the contrary were mistaken and required overruling.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Division Bench allowed the appeal and returned a final decision on both the interpretation of Rule 14 and the merits of the prosecution. The court expressly stated that the earlier decisions in K. Kameswara Rao v. State of A.P and Food Inspector, Karimnagar v. Kothakonda Shankar were incorrect and overruled them. The court then proceeded to convict and sentence the respondent.
Core Ruling: The court held that a polythene/plastic container may constitute an "other suitable container" under Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules if it is clean, dry, capable of being closed sufficiently tight so as to prevent leakage/evaporation or entrance of moisture (as applicable), and is carefully sealed.
Direct consequences imposed by the court: The court convicted the respondent-accused of offences under Sections 2(ia)(a), 7(v) and 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with default imprisonment for a further period of two months.
Broader implications (as reflected in the opinion): The Division Bench corrected the legal position regarding the meaning of "other suitable containers" in Rule 14 and thereby overruled two earlier decisions that had treated polythene bags as per se violative. However, the court also made clear that containers which do not satisfy Rule 14's express requirements (clean, dry, sufficiently tight closure, careful sealing) remain vulnerable to successful challenge; many prior cases were distinguished on that factual basis.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that under Rule 14 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, three modes of sending the samples are prescribed i.e, in dry bodies or in jars or in other suitable containers.
3. According to the teamed Public Prosecutor, the decision rendered by lower court requires reconsideration as the words “suitable container” have not yet been considered as porlythene bag also. In view of the submission with regard to the sending of sample, I fee that an authoritative pronouncement is essential on the said aspect by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, place the matter before the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice.
4. This Criminal Appeal coming on for consideration before the Division Bench pursuant to the order of this court dated 1-9-93 by a learned single Judge.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
V. Sivaraman Nair, J.:— This appeal is filed by the State assailing the acquittal of the respondent-accused in C.C No. 214 of 1991 by the II Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram.
5. The matter comes before us on a reference by our learned brother Justice G. Radhakrishna Rao. The reference was provoked by two decisions of Justice Y. Bhaskara Rao in K. Kameswara Rao v. State of A.P (1) 1990 A.P.L.J (Crl) 189 and Food Inspector, Karimnagar v. Kothakonda Shankar (2) 1991 A.P.L.J (Crl) 116.
6. Our learned brother Justice Y. Bhaskara Rao in the above two decisions held that if the samples of food articles, which were purchased by the Food Inspector, are sent for analysis in polythene bags, there will be violation of Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (herein after referred to as ‘the Rules’). In the former case, the teamed Judge set aside the conviction by the trial court and acquitted the accused. In the latter case, he dismissed the appeal filed by the Food Inspector, upholding the acquittal of the accused. In both these decisions, it was assumed that the only compliance with Rule 14 of the Rules shad be if the samples are collected and sent to the analyst in bottles or jars. In the latter decision, it was made clearer that Rule 14 of the Rules requires the Food Inspector to collect the samples only in suitable bottles. Since the samples in that case were collected in polythene bags, the learned Judge found that Rule 14 of the Rules was violated. In coming to the above conclusion, the learned Judge, in the former decision, stated that this Court had followed the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court regarding the said proposition.
7. Rule 14 of the Rules, which was said to have been violated, requires to be extracted. It reads:
“14. Manner of sending samples for analysis:— Samples of food for the purpose of analysis shall be taken in clean dry-bottles or jars or in other suitable containers, which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation, or in the case of dry substance, entrance of moisture and shall be carefully sealed.”
8. Packing of the samples is required to be in dry bottles or dry jars or in any other clean and dry suitable container. It is elementary that a ‘container’ means that which contains, and ordinarily cannot exclude a container made of polythene plastic. The requirements of Rule 14 are that it shall be clean and dry; it shall further be suitable as a container. Further requirements are that it shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage or evaporation. There is yet another requirement in case of dry substances that it shall also be closed sufficiently tight to prevent entrance of moisture. The last requirement is that the container shall be carefully sealed. We do not find that any one of these requirements militates against any suitable container, which satisfies all other requirements of Rule 14, to be a ‘suitable container’ contemplated by the Rule.
9. It is also necessary to refer to Rule 15, which provides that bottles and containers to be labeled and addressed; Rule 16 which provides for ‘manner of packing and sealing the samples’, and Rule 17, which provides for ‘manner of dispatching containers of samples’. There was no case before the trial court nor has counsel for the accused contended before us that the requirements of Rules 15, 16 or 17 of the Rules were not complied with. We have, therefore, to proceed on the basis that all the statutory requirements of sampling were complied with, and the only dispute relates to — whether a polythene container is a ‘suitable container’ as provided under Rule 14 of the Rules.
10. Mr. B. Nalin Kumar, counsel appearing for the respondent, has invited our attention to a number of decisions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and one decision of the Bombay High Court in support of his submissions. The decisions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court are those to which reference has been made by Justice Y. Bhaskara Rao in K. Kameswara Rao v. State of A.P (1) supra.
11. In view of the importance of the point raised, we have gone through all the decisions to which counsel for the respondent has made a reference. The first of them is Sham Lal v. State of Punjab (3) 1986 (2) F.A.C 245. Paragraph 3 of the above judgment states that the ground on which the complaint and the consequent proceedings were sought to be quashed was that the sample of chilly powder was not properly taken. Though it was required to be sealed in dry bottles, the Food Inspector forwarded the same to the Public Analyst in packets. Dealing with that fact situation, a learned single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the packets of chilly powder were sent for analysis in the original packing, whereas the consistent view of that Court was that taking of a sample in a paper packing was in violation of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and the same was fatal to the prosecution.
12. The next decision is Sardari Lal v. State of Punjab (4) 1986 (1) F.A.C 87. Here again the samples were taken and sent in paper packets and that was found to be in violation of the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules. In Nasib Chand v. The State of Punjab (5) 1986 (1) F.A.C 310 again the factual allegations were that the sample was divided into three parts and were packed in paper packets. The Court reiterated its earlier decision referred to above. In Pritam Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh (6) 1986 (1) F.A.C 313 the samples of Haldi were sent in paper packets and not in sealed containers. That was held to be violative of Rule 14 of the Rules. In Chand Ram v. The State of Punjab (7) 1986 (2) F.A.C 1 the court intervened on the ground that the incriminating article was taken and sent by the Food Inspector for analysis in paper packets, which was not permissible under the law. In Shiv Dutt Raj… v. The State Of Punjab…. (8) 1986 (3) F.A.C 13 also the samples were sent to the Public Analyst in paper packets instead of a container, which was held to be violative of Rule 14 of the Rules.
13. It is clear from the above decisions that the judgments were rested on a finding of fact to the effect that the requirements of Rule 14 of the Rules that the samples should be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or any other suitable container, which shall be closed sufficiently tight and carefully sealed, has not been complied with. In some cases like Sham Lal v. The State of Punjab (3) the incriminating articles were sent in their original packing. In other cases, they were sent in paper packets. It was not found that the articles were sent in containers which were sufficiently tight or they were carefully sealed. We are, therefore, of the opinion that none of the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, referred to above, dealt with the situation where a suitable container which was clean and dry and which was closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation or entrance of moisture and which were carefully sealed. None of those decisions, therefore, could be an authority for holding that if the container in which samples were sent, was a suitable container as was required by Rule 14 of the Rules and all other requirements of Rules 15 to 17 were duly complied with, the prosecution should fail for the only reason that the material was not sent in a bottle or a jar.
14. In State of Maharashtra v. Prabhudas Atalma Baktani (9) 1986 (3) F.A.C 221 Patel, J. of the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court, dealt with a case of samples having been taken in plastic paper and not in any container which was closed sufficiently tight or carefully sealed. The learned Judge held that the rule required that the sample should be sent to Public Analyst in dry and clean container and it was not contemplated that the sample should be sent in a plastic bag which can be easily be tampered with.
15. Counsel for the respondent urged before us that the ‘suitable container’ mentioned in Rule 14 shall be of the same type and category as a bottle or a jar. He submitted that in other words, it shall be a container made of hard substance, which will be difficult to tamper with. We are not inclined to agree. If that is the intention, the words “any other suitable container” would not have been used in the Rule. The only requirement, according to us, is that it shall be a container capable of being closed sufficiently tight and sealed. It shall also be suitable as a container of food articles. It must be capable of being closed so as to prevent leakage or evaporation in the case of non-dry substances and of entrance of moisture in the case of dry substances. Any container which is otherwise suitable as a container and which can be closed sufficiently tight and sealed, will fall within the requirements of Rule 14 of the Rules.
16. Counsel submitted that it is easy to tamper with a polythene bag. This may perhaps be true. But, it shall rather be part of the defence of the accused during the course of trial to plead that either the container was not suitable, or that it was not closed sufficiently tight, or it had not been carefully 5 sealed so as to prevent tampering with the sample. We have carefully perused the judgment. We have also examined the evidence which was led before the trial Court. No such defence was raised during the course of trial. The mere possibility of tampering with containers is not confined only to plastic containers. It may equally apply to bottles and jars. If the prosecution should fail in all cases where there is a distant possibility of tampering with the container, it may not be possible to sustain any proceeding under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. We are, therefore, not persuaded to accede to this submission urged by the respondent.
17. The trial Magistrate found the respondent-accused to have committed the offences with which he was charged, but acquitted him only on the basis of the alleged violation of Rule 14 of the Rules relying on the decisions of Sri Justice Y. Bhaskara Rao in K. Kameshwara Rao v. State of A.P (1) supra and Food Inspector, Karimnagar v. Kothakonda Shankar (2) supra which we have referred to earlier.
18. We hold that the above two decisions do not reflect the correct position of law and they were rendered due to an obvious mistake as to the contents and comprehension of Rule 14 of the Rules. The only requirement of that Rule is that the sample shall be sent in clean dry bottles or clean dry jars or other suitable clean dry container. Apart from bottles and jars, other suitable-containers are also within the comprehension of Rule 14. We do not find anything in the rule which precludes a plastic container to be considered as a suitable container. We, therefore, overrule the decisions in K. Kameswara Rao v. State of A.P (1) and Food Inspector, Karimnagar v. Kothakonda Shankar (2).
19. We have adverted to the fact that the learned Magistrate gave a positive finding that all the procedural requirements of the Rules have been duly complied with. He also found that the evidence let in by the prosecution made out the offence with which the respondent-accused was charged.
20. Section 2(ia)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act defines ‘adulterated’ an article of food, 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. Section 7(v) of the Act prohibits manufacture, sale, etc., of certain articles of food and provides that no person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale or store, sell or distribute any article of food in contravention of any other provision of this Act or of any rule made thereunder. Rule 23 of the Rules provides that unauthorised addition of colouring matter to any article of food except as specifically permitted by the rules is prohibited.
21. The colouring matter, Red Tartrazine, which was used in the present case was undeniably one which was not specifically permitted by the Rules. Rule 28 of the Rules deals with permitted colouring materials of coal tar base. Red Tartrazine is not a permitted colour. It is obvious, therefore, that the prosecution had wholly established the guilt of the accused. Once we find that the respondent-accused is guilty of the above offences, the only course open for us is to convict him under Section 16 of the Act and impose the punishment as provided thereunder. The minimum sentence is imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine which shall not be less than Rs. 1,000/-. Counsel for the respondent pleaded that the offence was committed way back in 1990 and therefore, there is no need to convict the accused at this distance of time. Since a statutory minimum punishment is prescribed, we have no course open except to impose that minimum punishment.
22. We, therefore, allow this appeal, convict the respondent-accused of offences under Sections 2(ia)(a), 7(v) and 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default he shall undergo imprisonment for a further period of two months.
Alert