- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State v. Uma Charan Ram .
Judgment Summary — R.K. Das, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
The State appealed an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karanjia dated "261-1964" (as recorded in the opinion) which had acquitted the respondent, Uma Charan Ram, of an offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act XXXVII of 1954).
The respondent owned a grocery shop at Jashipur, Mayurbhanj. On 9-2-63 the Food Inspector (P.W.1) inspected the shop, purchased samples of coconut oil for analysis and sent them to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst's report (Ex. 4) stated that the coconut oil sample was adulterated. Following receipt of that report and after obtaining sanction from the District Health Officer, P.W.1 filed a complaint (Ex. 5) and cognizance was taken; the respondent was tried under Section 16(a) of the Act.
The respondent admitted selling the sample to the Food Inspector but contended (i) that he had not adulterated the oil and it could have become adulterated due to customers' carelessness, and (ii) critically, that coconut oil was not used as an article of food in the area where he sold it and therefore he was not prosecutable under the Act. The learned Magistrate found the coconut oil adulterated but acquitted the accused on the ground that coconut oil was not an "article of food" in Orissa and therefore did not fall within the Act; this acquittal led to the State's appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether coconut oil falls within the statutory definition of "food" in Section 2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for purposes of prosecution under Section 16, even though it is not commonly used as food in the State of Orissa.
- Whether a transaction by way of sale of a sample to a Food Inspector for analysis constitutes a "sale" within the meaning of Section 16 such that the sale of an adulterated article is punishable.
- Whether the Public Analyst's report (Form III, Ex. 4) is admissible and sufficient evidence of adulteration where Rules 7 and 18 (concerning comparison and transmission of specimen impressions of seals) were alleged not to have been complied with.
- Whether the accused's failure to invoke Section 13(2) (application for testing at the Central Food Laboratory) or to challenge the Public Analyst's report during trial affects the evidentiary value of that report.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (State)
- The appeal challenges the acquittal and proceeds on the basis that the coconut oil is an edible oil listed in the Rules (appendix B, item No. 17) with a prescribed standard, and a Public Analyst's report (Ex. 4) shows the sample was below that standard (i.e., adulterated).
- It is implicitly advanced that the adulterated sale is punishable under Section 16, and that the learned Magistrate erred in holding that coconut oil is not "food" for the purposes of the Act merely because it is not commonly used as food in Orissa.
Respondent
- The respondent admitted the sale of the sample but contended that he did not adulterate the oil and that adulteration could have occurred due to customers' carelessness.
- Substantively, the respondent's principal plea was that coconut oil is not used as an article of food in the local area of Orissa, and therefore it does not fall within the Act's definition of "food" and he cannot be prosecuted under Section 16.
- Counsel for the respondent (Mr. Kanungo) additionally argued that Rules 7 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules were not complied with, and therefore the Public Analyst's report should not be accepted as sufficient evidence of adulteration for convicting the accused.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Municipal Board, Kanpur v. Janki Prasad, AIR 1963 All 433 (Full Bench, Allahabad High Court) | That the fact an article (linseed oil in that case) is not used as edible in a particular State is immaterial because the Act is All-India; if an article is food in parts of the country it is to be deemed 'food' elsewhere for purposes of the Act. | The court applied this reasoning by analogy — holding that coconut oil, being used as food in other parts of India, must be deemed "food" in Orissa for the Act's purposes and thus sale of adulterated coconut oil is an offence. |
| Leela Bam v. State, AIR 1964 Punjab 427 | That an article ordinarily used for human consumption retains its character as 'food' even if it has occasional non-food uses (example: hing used occasionally for agricultural purposes). | The court cited this decision to support the proposition that coconut oil's alternative non-food uses in Orissa do not remove it from the category of 'food' under the Act. |
| Mangaldas Raghabjee Ruperoll v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1963 (Supreme Court) | That a sale by way of sample to the Food Inspector for analysis can amount to a "sale" within the meaning of the Act. | The court relied on this Supreme Court decision to hold that the transaction of giving the sample to the Food Inspector was a "sale" punishable under Section 16(a) if adulterated. |
| Daryanomal v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 1963 (Supreme Court) | Also cited for the proposition that a sample sale to an inspector is a "sale" under the statute. | The court relied on this authority together with Mangaldas (supra) to sustain that the sample transaction constituted a sale for purposes of Section 16. |
| State of Gujarat v. Shantaben, AIR 1964 Gujarat 136 (Single Judge) | Held that absence of an express mention in the Public Analyst's report that the analyst compared the container's seal with the specimen seal sent by post could render the report unreliable because Rules 7 and 18 exist to prevent tampering. | The present court considered this decision but disagreed with it: it observed that the prescribed Form III does not require an endorsement of comparison of seals and that Section 13(5) makes a Public Analyst's report admissible; the court therefore rejected the contrary view of the Gujarat single judge in the circumstances of this case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court's reasoning proceeded in a series of discrete steps, applying statutory provisions, the Rules, and precedents:
- Statutory definition and standards: The court examined Section 2(v) of the Act (definition of "food") and noted that Rule 5 and Appendix B (item No. 17) classify coconut oil as one of the edible oils with a prescribed standard. The Public Analyst's report (Ex. 4) indicated the sample was below that standard and thus adulterated under Section 2(1).
- Whether local non-use matters: The court confronted the question whether coconut oil must be used locally in Orissa to be "food" under the Act. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Municipal Board, Kanpur v. Janki Prasad (AIR 1963 All 433) and the Punjab High Court decision in Leela Bam v. State, the court held that the Act being All-India means that if an article is food in parts of India, it is to be deemed "food" in other parts for the Act's purposes. Thus the magistrate's conclusion that coconut oil was not "food" in Orissa and therefore not covered by the Act was rejected as untenable.
- Sale by sample is a sale: The court accepted the Supreme Court authorities (Mangaldas Raghabjee Ruperoll and Daryanomal) that handing over a sample to the Food Inspector for analysis constitutes a "sale" within the meaning of Section 16; therefore the transaction in evidence could ground a charge under Section 16(a) if the article was adulterated.
- Admissibility and value of Public Analyst's report; Rules 7 and 18: The respondent argued that Rules 7 and 18 (duties of the Public Analyst and separate transmission of specimen impressions of the seal) were not shown to have been complied with and therefore the Public Analyst's report should be rejected. The court analysed the text of the prescribed Form III and observed that it does not require the Public Analyst to endorse that he compared the seals with a separately sent specimen impression. The court emphasised that Section 13 makes a Public Analyst's report admissible in evidence without formal proof, though the weight to be attached remains for the court to decide.
- Opportunity to obtain Central Laboratory certificate and challenge: The court noted Section 13(2) which permits an accused, on payment of fee, to have the sample sent to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for certification (and that such a certificate under Section 13(5) is conclusive). The accused in this case did not take that step, nor did he challenge the Public Analyst's report in cross-examination of P.W.1 or otherwise.
- Compliance by the Food Inspector: On the record the Food Inspector (P.W.1) testified that he divided the article into three parts as required, gave one part to the accused (receipt Ex. 2), sealed all containers in the presence of the accused and witnesses, sent one to the Public Analyst and retained another for court production. The court concluded P.W.1 complied with the requirements as to sampling so far as his evidence shows.
- Rejection of the Gujarat single-judge view: The court considered State of Gujarat v. Shantaben (AIR 1964 Gujarat 136) which refused to accept a Public Analyst's report absent an explicit statement of seal comparison, but declined to follow that approach because Form III does not provide for such an endorsement and Section 13(5) makes the report admissible; moreover the accused did not avail himself of statutory remedies to challenge the report.
- Conclusion as to the learned Magistrate's error: In light of the above, the court found the magistrate's principal reason for acquittal (non-use of coconut oil as food in Orissa) to be legally erroneous and therefore not maintainable.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Court set aside the order of acquittal, convicted the respondent under Section 16(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, with default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appeal by the State was allowed.
Implications:
- Direct effect on the parties: The respondent's acquittal was overturned and he was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
- Statutory interpretation: The court applied existing authorities to hold that an article's status as "food" under the Act is not negated by its lack of use in a particular State; if an article is used as food elsewhere in India and is covered by the Rules (e.g., listed in Appendix B), it is to be treated as "food" for the Act's purposes in that State as well.
- Evidence and procedure: The decision confirms that a Public Analyst's report in the prescribed Form III is admissible under Section 13 and that the absence of an explicit statement about comparison of seals in the form does not automatically invalidate the report. The accused's statutory remedies (e.g., request for Central Food Laboratory testing under Section 13(2)) and the opportunity to challenge the report in trial are relevant to the weight of such reports.
- Precedential note: The opinion resolves the issues in reliance on cited authorities but does not purport to lay down a novel principle beyond the application of those authorities; the immediate legal consequence is the conviction and sentence of the respondent.
This summary is based exclusively on the contents of the provided opinion and does not add information beyond what is contained in that text.
R.K Das, J.:— This appeal by the State is directed against an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karanjia, dated 261-1964 acquitting the respondent of an offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Aet.
2. The respondent Uma Charan Ram owns a grocery shop at Jashipur in the district of Mayurbhanj. On 9-2-63, the Food Inspector (P.W 1) inspected his shop and purchased samples of some cocoanut oil for the purpose of analysis and despatched the same in the usual course for examination by the Public Analyst with a view to find out if the said oil was pure or adulterated. He received a report (Ex. 4) from the Public Analyst saying that the sample of cocoanut oil was found to he adulterated. On receipt of Ex. 4, P.W 1 filed a complaint (Ex. 5), after obtaining necessary sanction from the District Health Officer. On the basis of the complaint, cognizance was taken and the accused was tried for an offence under Section 16(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act XXXVII of 1954) (hereinafter described as ‘the Act’). The accused admitted that he sold the sample of cocoanut oil to the Food Inspector, PW. i. His plea was that the cocoanut oil was no adulterated by him and it might have got adulterated due to the carelessness of the customers for which he was not responsible. His substantial plea, however, was that the cocoanut oil is not used as an article of food in the area where he was selling it and as such he was not liable to bo prosecuted under the Act.
3. The learned Magistrate found that the cocoanut oil sold by the respondent was adulterated, but relied upon the evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses who admitted that cocoanut oil is not used as an article of food in the area and held that since it was not an article of food in Orissa, the accused cannot be held guilty under Section 16 of the Act. He accordingly acquitted the accused. Hence this appeal by the State.
4. The main question for consideration is whether cocoanut oil comes within the definition of ‘food’ as given in Section 2(v) of the Act which defines ‘food’ to mean:
“Any article used as food or dring for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes:
(a) any article which ordinarily enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of human food,……………”
5. Section 2(1) says that an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard. Under Rule 5, framed under the Act the standard of various articles of food has been specified. In appendix B, item No. 17 cocoanut oil has been shown as one of the edible oils and its standard has been prescribed. The report of the Public Analyst shows that it is below the standard and is thus adulterated. No doubt so far as Orissa is concerned, cocoanut oil is not generally used as an article of food or as a medium in the preparation of food, but undoubtedly it is so used in other parts of the country. The question, therefore is whether it can still be taken as an article of food in Orissa for the purpose of the Act even though it is not so used in Orissa. A similar question came up for consideration before a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in a case reported in AIR 1963 All 433, Municipal Board, Kanpur v. Janki Prasad. There the question was whether the sale of adulterated Linseed oil, which is not used as an edible article in Uttar Pradesh, amounts to an offence under Section 16 of the Act. Their Lordships held that the fact that Linseed oil is not Used in Uttar Pradesh as a medium of food is immaterial because the Act is an All-India Act, and if linseed oil can be considered to be food in areas where it is used as cooking medium or for other food purposes, it would also be deemed to be a ‘food’ in Uttar Pradesh. Similarly when cocoanut oil is used as an article of food in some other parts of the country then it must also be deemed to be ‘food’ in Orissa and sale of such adulterated oil would amount to an offence under Section 16 of the Act. The fact that it is being used in Orissa for some other purposes is also wholly ???mmaterial.
6. The Punjab High Court in a case reported in, AIR 1964 Punjab 427, Leela Bam v. State, took the view that as Hing is ordinarily used for human consumption, its occasional use for agricultural purposes, would not take it out of the category of food. Thus, the mere fact. that cocoanut oil has an alternative use in the State of Orissa and is not used as an article of food in this part of the country, is of no consequence in determining the question if the accused was found to have sold sorne adulterated stuff of edible oil. The reasoning adopted by the learned Magistrate is wholly untenable and cannot be accepted.
7. Section 16(a) of the Act penalises the sale of adulterated food. That a ‘sale’ by way of sample to the Food Inspector even for the purpose of analysis is a ‘sale’ within the meaning of the Act, cannot be disputed, in view of the decision, of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1963 Mangaldas Raghabjee Ruperoll v. State of Maharashtra, and Criminal Appeal 113 of 1963 Daryanomal v. State of Maharashtra.
8. Mr. Kanungp, learned Counsel for the respondent, howewer, ???ged that the Rules 7 and 18 of the prevention Food Adu???teration. Rules (herein-after described as ‘Rules’) have not been followed in this case and as suchi the report of the Public Analyst cannot be be accepted as suffcient evidence of adulteration of food and for convicting the accused under; Section 16 of the Act. It is necessary to quote these Rules here. Rule 7 provides that:
“Duties of Public Analyst; (1) On receipt of a packet containing a sample for analysis from a Food Inspector or any other person the public analyst or an officer authorised by him, shall compare the seals on the container and the outer cover with the specimen impression received separately and shall note the conditioon of the seals thereon. (2) The Public analyst shall cause to be analysed such samples of article of food as may be sent to him by the Inspector or by any other person under the Act. (3) After the analysis has been completed he shall forthwith supply to the person concerned a report in Form III of the result of such analysis.
9. Rule 18 reads as follows:
“Memorandum and impression of seal to be sent separately by post. A copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent to the Public Analyst separately, by registered post or delivered to him or to any person authorised by him.”
10. It was urged that there is nothing on record to show that Rules 7 and 18 were duly complied with and the specimen of the seal, used to seal the packet was sent to the public analyst by registered post or that the public analyst compared the said seal with the seal given on the container. But there can not be any dispute over the fact that the; report, Ex. 4 was given in the prescribed form. In the prescribed, form, however, the public analyst is simply called upon to state that he received the sample for analysis properly ???ealed and that he found the reat intact and unbroken. There is nothing in the Form to show that he is required to make any mention of the fact of his having received the specimen impression of the seal or that he had made comparison of the same. It is clear from the report that it was given in the prescribed form and that the Public Analyst analysed the sample sent by P.W 1 and found the same to be adulterated. Section 13 of the Act deals with the report of the Public Analyst in ascertaining whether the food was adulterated or not and under Section 13 the report of the Public Analyst shall without formal proof be admissible in evidence. But what value is to be attached to such a report has necessarily to be determined by the Court.
11. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 13 the accused, however, has an opportunity on payment of the prescribed fee to make an application to the Court for sending the sample of the alleged adulterated article purchased by the Food Inspector under Section 11 to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for a certificate. The certificate issued by the Director would then supersede the report of the Public Analyst. Under Section 13(5) the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory is not only made admissible in evidence, but it is conclusive of the fact contained therein. The accused, however, has not taken any such steps in this case to challenge the report of the Public Analyst, nor has it been challenged in cross examination of P.W 1. It was also open to the accused to examine P.W 1 as a witness and to take other appropriate steps for the purpose. From the evidence of PW 1 it appears that he took the samples, gave one to the accused under receipt, Ex 2, divided the article into three parts as required under the law, then all the containers were duly fastened and sealed in the presence of the accused and the witnesses and one was sent to the Public Analyst while the other was kept by himself for production in Court. In other words, he complied with all the requirements of the rules so far as he is concerned. No doubt, he has not said in so many words that he complied with the provisions of Rule 7 while sending the specimen impression of the seal to the Public Analyst. In this connection, Mr. Kanungo relied upon a decision of the single Judge of Gujrat High Court in the case of State of Gujrat v. Shantaben reported in AIR 1964 Gujarat 136, where the learned Judge took the view that in the absence of any mention in the report of the Public Analyst that he compared the seal of the container with the specimen seal sent to him by post, it cannot be made sure that the sample which was received was not tampered with on the way and that Rules 7 and 18 which are framed to prevent such possibility cannot be said to have been complied with. It is on that ground alone be refused to accept the report of the Public Analyst and dismissed the appeal of the State filed against the order of acquittal. Wltn great respect, I cannot agree with the view taken by the learned Judge. The Public Analyst has to submit his report in Form III prescribed under the Rules. That form does not prescribe anything calling on the Public Analyst to make an endorsement to the effect that he compared the seals on the container with the specimen seals sent to him. In the absence of any such column in the said form, it cannot be said that the report was in any way ???tregular. Further, Section 13(5) provides that any document purporting to be a report signed by the Public Analyst unless it has been superseded under Sub-section (3) or any other document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, may be used as evidence of facts stated therein, in any proceeding under this Act or under Sections 372 to 376 of the Indian Penal Code. As I have said above, the accused did not challenge the position in course of the trial and the learned Magistrate acquitted (he accused mainly on the ground that the cocoanut oil is not used as an article of food in Orissa and as such it does not come within the meaning of ‘food’ under the Act. As stated above, this conclusion of the learned Magistrate is clearly wrong and cannot be maintained.
12. In the result, the order of acquittal of the respondent is set aside. The respondent-accused is convicted under Section 16(a) of the Act and is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- in default to undergo R.I for one month.
13. Appeal allowed.
Alert