Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

. of .

Judges

Mr. Justice Man Mohan Singh Gujral
Mr. Justice D.S. Tewatia

Acts

SECTION 13 PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT
Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 11
Sub-section (5) of Section 13(2)
Sub-section (2} of Section 13

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Concise Analytical Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a complaint by the Food Inspector under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The respondent, Shadi Lall son of Hans Rai, was tried before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar, and acquitted by an order dated 30th July 1971. The Municipal Committee, Amritsar, aggrieved by that acquittal, filed the present appeal by special leave.

Factual events leading to prosecution: On 29th August 1970 at about 10:45 a.m., Municipal Food Inspector Pal Dass visited the accused's shop and purchased turmeric powder for Rs. 1.50. The powder was divided into three parts and placed into three clean, dry bottles. One bottle (properly stoppered and sealed) was left with the accused; of the remaining two, one was sent to the Public Analyst and reported as adulterated. During the trial the Food Inspector obtained a court order and the second bottle (with seals intact) was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, whose report also indicated adulteration but attributed it specifically to the presence of non-permitted coal-tar dyes.

At trial the learned Magistrate found the taking of the sample established but concluded the sample was not taken properly and that some colouring might have been inadvertently mixed into the sample while being taken. The Magistrate relied on the Food Inspector's use, in the shop, of scales, a piece of newspaper and a piece of bamboo that had not been washed and which the Magistrate thought had earlier been used by the accused for weighing and selling colour and other articles. On that basis the Magistrate acquitted the accused. The Municipal Committee appealed.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial court was correct to acquit the accused on the ground that the sample, though established as taken, was not taken in a proper manner and might have been contaminated in the course of taking?
Whether a conflict between the report of the Public Analyst and the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, entitles the accused to acquittal when both reports exist?
Whether, having once obtained a report from the Director, Central Food Laboratory under Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, a second application by the opposite party to send another sample to the Director for a certificate is permissible or whether only one certificate is contemplated by the statute?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant (Municipal Committee)

The Municipal Committee, as complainant, appealed the acquittal and relied on the evidence of sampling and the Director, Central Food Laboratory's report indicating adulteration (presence of non-permitted coal-tar dyes).
Implicit in the appeal is the contention that the trial court's conclusion of improper sampling was unfounded and that the Director's report should prevail.

Respondent (Shadi Lall) / Defence

The accused relied on the ostensible conflict between the Public Analyst's report and the Director, Central Food Laboratory's report, contending that this conflict entitled him to acquittal. In support he relied on the decision in Rattan Lai v. The State (1974) 76 Pun LR 43.
The accused further argued (again with reference to Rattan Lai) that when his own application to send his sample to the Director was refused by the trial court, that refusal amounted to a denial of an opportunity to prove his innocence.
At trial it appears the defence emphasized the trial Magistrate's factual findings as justifying acquittal on contamination grounds arising from alleged unwashed implements (scales, bamboo, newspaper) used by the Food Inspector during sampling.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Rattan Lai v. The State (1974) 76 Pun LR 43	Used by the defence to argue: (a) that conflicting reports from the Public Analyst and the Director may show samples came from different sources and could support acquittal; (b) that refusal to send the accused's sample to the Director under Section 13(2) is a denial of opportunity to prove innocence.	The Court respectfully disagreed with the quoted reasoning in Rattan Lai. It held that Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act makes the Director's report conclusive and prevents use of the Public Analyst's report as evidence of facts once the Director's report is obtained. The Court also distinguished the contention about denial of opportunity: Section 13(2) contemplates application by either party but, as interpreted by the Court, does not envisage two certificates from the Director; if the complainant's application was allowed and there was no opposition, a later application by the accused for a second Director's certificate can be declined without infringing the accused's rights.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded in several discrete steps:

Sampling and trial-court findings: The court accepted that taking of the sample had been established beyond doubt, but examined whether the trial court's inference of contamination during sample collection was justified. The trial court had relied on the Food Inspector's use of unwashed scales, bamboo and a shop newspaper and concluded contamination was possible.
Conjecture versus evidence: The appellate court found the trial Magistrate's conclusion rested on conjecture. It noted that it was never suggested to the Food Inspector that the weighing scales or newspaper were actually besmeared with colouring matter at the time of sampling; no dust or colour on those articles had been pointed out at the time. Therefore the court concluded it was not open to the Magistrate to draw the inference that colouring matter had mixed into the sample.
Legal effect of conflicting laboratory reports: The accused relied on the conflict between the Public Analyst's report and the Director, Central Food Laboratory's report and invoked Rattan Lai. The court rejected the view (attributed to Rattan Lai) that the Director's report is not conclusive on safe transit or custody. The court relied on Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which the court read as barring use of the Public Analyst's report as evidence of the facts once the Director's report has been obtained. Hence the Public Analyst's report must be ignored for evidentiary purposes after the Director's report is available.
Safeguards for integrity of samples in transit: The court observed that Sub-section (2) of Section 13 and Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 provide procedural safeguards: the court must ascertain that the prescribed mark and seal/fastening are intact before dispatching the sample to the Director. If seals and marks are intact, there is no room to contend the sample was tampered with during storage and transit. Thus, proper seals in accordance with Section 11(1) act as a guarantee of safe storage and transit.
Whether two Director certificates are permissible: The court analyzed Section 13(2) and its proviso (Sub-section (5) of Section 13(2) as described in the opinion) and concluded that the statute contemplates only one certificate from the Director. The opening words of Section 13(2) ("After the institution of a prosecution...the accused... or the complainant may...make an application to the Court...") indicate that either party may apply but not both, unless one party's application has been rejected. The court reasoned that since the application is to be decided after examining the sample and hearing the opposite party, normally there is no occasion for sending two samples to the Director. The proviso that the Director's certificate shall be final and conclusive applies to one certificate and does not envisage multiple certificates. Therefore, where the complainant's application has been made and allowed (particularly if unopposed), it is not open to the accused to press another application; declinature of such a second application in those circumstances does not infringe the accused's rights.
Conclusion on guilt: Applying the above legal reasoning and rejecting the trial court's conjectural inference of contamination, the appellate court found a case punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act had been established against the accused.
Sentencing rationale: The court took into account the long delay since the sample was taken (1970) and that the accused had endured the trial process for four years, deciding that a sentence of fine alone would meet the ends of justice.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

The accused, Shadi Lall, was found guilty under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

Sentence imposed: The court convicted the respondent and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000; in default of payment he shall suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment. The Municipal Committee's appeal was allowed to the extent of this conviction and sentence.

Implications (direct effect on the parties):

The acquittal by the trial Magistrate was set aside and the accused was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
The decision resolves, in this case, that once a Director, Central Food Laboratory's report is obtained under Section 13, the earlier Public Analyst's report cannot be used as evidence of the facts stated therein; the appellate court expressly disagreed with the contrary view attributed to Rattan Lai.

Broader precedent: The opinion does not expressly claim to set a broad new precedent beyond the case-specific holdings summarized above.

Judge: D.S. Tewatia, J. — Judgment includes the single-line concurrence "I agree." The text of this summary is strictly confined to and derived from the provided opinion excerpt and does not add external material.

Show full summary ...

Municipal Committee v. Shadi Lal

1. On a corn-plaint bv the Food Inspector under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act Shadi Lall son of Hans Rai respondent was tried bv the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Amritsar. and' was acquitted by order dated ,30th July 1971. Being aggrieved, the Municipal Committee, Amritsar, has filed this appeal bv special leave.

2. Pal Dass, Municipal Food Inspector, had eone to the shop of the ac-cusedi on 29th August 1970 at 10.45 a. m. and had purchased turmeric oowder for. Rs. 1.50. The powder was divided into three parts and was put into three clean and dry bottles. One of the bottles was left with the accused after it was proner-lv stoppered and sealed. Out of the other two bottles, one was sent to the Public Analyst and on receipt of the report thaJ the turmeric was adulterated, a complaint was filed against the accused.

3. During the trial the Food Inspector made an application to the Court and obtained' an order for sending the second bottle to the Director. Central Food Laboratory. This bottle was dulv sent after its seals were found intact and a report of the Director was obtained. This report is materially different from the report of the Public Analyst and shows that the turmeric was adulterated on; account of the presence of non-permitted coaltar dves.

4. The learned trial Court held that the taking of the sample had been established beyond doubt. He, however, came to the conclusion that the sample was not taken in a proper manner and it was possible that some colour or dve may have got mixed with the sample in.- - advertently while the sample was being taken. The reason advanced for coming to this conclusion is that the Food Ins* ipector had made use of scales, a piece of newspaper and a Piece of bamboo Wing in the shop of the accused for taking the sample weighing it and putting it into bottles. It was noticed that the scales and the bamboo had not been washed and that earlier these articles had been used by the accused] for weighing and selling colour and other articles. While taking this view the learned trial Magistrate made the following observations:

The Food Inspector nowhere stated that he cleaned the bamboo or the pair of scales before taking the sample and there is also possibilitv that the newspaper which was taken from the shoo was besmeared with some sort of colouring matter. Hans Raj P.W. has stated that the Food Inspector did, not wash the scales nor the bamboo nor the weights when sample was taken and in these cir-' cumstances the contention of the learned counsel has to be accepted and it has to be concluded that the sample was not taken bv the Food; Inspector in a proper manner and there is possibility that some sort of colouring matter, even though unknowing, got added in the sample turmeric while the sample was being taken bv the Food Inspector.

It appears that the learned trial Magistrate proceeded entirelv on conjectures. It was nowhere suggested to the Food Inspector that the weighing scales had in fact been besmeared or that- there was any colouring matter on the newspaper which was used for taking the sample. The question of the Food Inspector wash-Ing the weighing scales or the bamboo would have onlv arisen if any dust or colour had been noticed on these articles. There being no indication that at the time of taking the sample it was pointed out that there was some colour on these articles, it was not open to the learned trial Magistrate to resort to coniecture and to draw conclusion that some colouring matter sot mixed up in the sample of turmeric.

5. Faced with this situation, it was contended on behalf of the accused that he was entitled to acquittal as there was a conflict between the report of the Public Analyst and that of the Director, Central Food Laboratory. -In support of this contention, the ratio of the decision in Rattan Lai v. The State (1974) 76 Pun LR 43. was pressed into service. Reliance was particularly placed oni the following observations made, in Rattan Lai's case :

The two reports were so inconsistent and contradictory that thev mav seem to lend support to the petitioner's argument that the sample tested respectively bv the Public Analyst and the Director could not have originated from the same source. The Director's report is final and conclusive onlv on the point that the sample reached his office with seals intact and that the various tests mentioned therein were duly carried out and that the conclusdon drawn were correct. This report is no guarantee of the safe storage and transit of the sample while it was in the custody of the complainant. The conflicting reports may. on the other hand, show that the two samples had different origins. The Director's report cannot be final or conclusive with regard to the safe keeping of samples during storage and transit while thev were in the complainant's possession.

With utmost respect to the learned Judge who decided Rattan Lai's case, we are unable to agree with the above view as being the correct interpretation of Section 13 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Sub-section (5) of Section 13 clearly envisages that once the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory has been obtained the report of the Public Analyst cannot be used as evidence of the facts stated therein. This being the position, it is not open to the accused to contend that it was inconsistent with! the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. Once the report of the Director has been obtained, for all intents and purposes the report of the Public Analyst is to be ignored, as it cannot be used as evidence of anv facts1 stated therein.

6. The second part of the argument that the Director's report is no guarantee of the safe storage and transit of the sample while it was in the custody of the complainant could have been plausible if necessarv safeguard had not been provided in sub-section (2)' of section 13. According to this provision, on receipt of the application from the accused or the complainant the Court has to ascertain that the mark and seal or fastening as provided in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 are intact, If these marks and seals were found intact there is no room for contending that the sample had been tampered with during storage and transit. In fact, the existence of proper^ mark and seal or fastening in accordance with Section 11(1) of the Act would be guarantee of the safe storage and transit of the sample while it was in the custody of the complainant or of the accused for that matter. Unless the Court was fully satisfied about these matters the sample cannot be despatched to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. In the face of this provision, the view taken in Rattan Lai's case (1974) 76 Pun LR 43, does not appear to be correct.

7. Another interesting argument was advanced on. behalf of the accused and support for it was again sought from, Rattan Lai's case (1974) 76 Pun LR 43. It was pointed out that the application for sending the sample in his possession to the, Director was declined bv the trial Court and that this amounted to denial of opportunity to him to prove his innocence. In this respect, our attention was drawn to the following observations in Rattan Lai's case;

The turning down of the petitioner's application under Section 13(2) of the Act for the sample in his possession being sent to the Director was, therefore, an unjustified denial of an opportunity to .prove his innocence.

It may be mentioned that the above observations were made in a case where earlier the sample kept bv the Municipal Committee was sent to the Director. Central Food Laboratory, and his reiport was obtained. Subsequently the accused had applied that his sample be sent. Similar are the facts in the present case. The question would, therefore, arise as to whether if once a sample has been sent to the Director. Central Food Laboratory, under Section 13(2) and a certificate has been obtained, can another sample be sent bv the other partv for getting another certificate from the Director. The language of Section 13(2) gives a clear indication that only one certificate can be obtained. The opening words of Section 13(2), namely,

"After the institution of a prosecution...the accused... or the complainant may...make an application to the Court..."

do indicate that either of the parties may apply but not both unless the application of one of them has been rejected. In fact. Section 13 does not envisage two reports by the Director. Central Food Laboratory, even though the legislature was fully aware that besides the sample sent to the Public Analyst there were two other samples which couldl be sent to the Director. Central Food Laboratory. The reason which favours this view is also not far to seek. Sub-section (2} of Section 13 envisages that the application of either party would be decided after examining the sample and hearing the opposite partv and in this situation normally there would be no occasion for sending two samples to the Director. Central Food Laboratory, Moreover, proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 13(2) lavs down that a certificate sent by the Director shall be final and oonclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. This proviso can only aoolv to one certificate and does not envisage that there mav be more than one certificate. I am. therefore, of the view that if an application has been made bv the complainant and has been allowed especially if there is no opposition to it, it is not open to the accused to press another application for obtaining an order for sending the second sample t0 the Director, Central Food Laboratory. If ttie second application is declined in these circumstances, no right of the accused i infringed.

8. For the reasons indicated above, I find that the acquittal of the accused respondent was1 erroneous and that a case punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been fully established against him. We, therefore, find the accused respondent guilty of this offence. Having regard to the fact that the sample was taken as far back as 1970 and the accused has been suffering the aeony of the'trial for the last four years. I am of the view that the sentence of fine alone would meet the ends of iustice. 1. therefore, while convicting Shadi Lai respondent under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default of payment of which he shall suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment. The appeal of the Municipal Committee is allowed to the extent ordered above.

D.S. Tewatia, J.

9. I agree.

Municipal Committee v. Shadi Lal

Concise Analytical Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant (Municipal Committee)

Respondent (Shadi Lall) / Defence

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Municipal Committee v. Shadi Lal

Comments