1. This is an appeal filed by the State against an order of acquittal in a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act). The respondent, the accused in the case was tried by the Sub Divisional (Judicial) Magistrate, Neyyattinkara for an offence punishable under S. 7 read with S. 10(1)(a)(i) of the Act on the allegation that on January 22, 1976 at 2.15 p.m he sold to the Food Inspector (Pw. 1) 450 grams of cumin seeds out of a larger quantity kept in his shop for sale and the same was, on analysis, found to be adulterated. As par Ex. P5, the report of the Public Analyst, the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for cumin seed and was therefore adulterated. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him. In the course of the trial the sample given to the accused by the Food Inspector was sent through court for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. Ex. D1 is the certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate holding that there was conflict and variation between Ex. P5 and Ex. D1, acquitted the accused.

2. Attacking this order of acquittal, the learned Public Proeecutor contended that the reasoning given by the trial court for the acquittal is palpably wrong and unsustainable in law and on the facts, that as per Ex. D1 which has superseded Ex. P5, the sample was adulterated under S. 2(i)(f) of the Act and that therefore the order of acquittal has to be set aside and the respondent be convicted for the offence with which he was charged.

3. Sri P. Sukumaran Nair, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that even if the reasoning given by the trial court is wrong the order of acquittal is correct and sustainable as there are other valid grounds to support it.

4. It has been sufficiently proved in the case that the accused sold cumin seeds to Pw. 1 in the manner and under the circumstances alleged. There is the evidence of Pw. 1, the Food Inspector in support of this, corroborated by the evidence of Pw. 3, peon attached to Pw. 1's office, Ext. P1 the notice issued to the respondent in Form VI, Ex. P2 the receipt issued by the respondent acknowledging the receipt of the price of the article purchased by Pw. 1 and Ex. P5 the mahazar prepared on the spot.

5. The following is the standard prescribed for cumin seeds under the Rules framed under the Act. (Item A. 05.09):

“The proportion of extraneous matter including dust, dirt, stones, lumps of earth, chaff, stem or straw shall not exceed 7.0 per cent by weight. The proportion of edible seeds other than cumin seeds shall not exceed 5.0 per cent by weight.”

6. Ex. P5, the report of the Public Analyst, states that the sample contained 10.5% extraneous seeds by weight and 5.6% extraneous matter including dust, stones, lumps of earth, chaff, stem or straw by weight and therefore the sample did not conform to the standard and was adulterated. Under sub-section (3) of S. 13 of the Act

“The certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under sub-section (2) shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst under sub-section (1)”;

7. and under sub-section (5)

“Any document purporting to be a report signed by a Public Analyst, unless it has been superseded under sub-section (3) or any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceeding under this Act or under Ss. 272 to 278 of the Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860.).”

8. Ex. D1 is the certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under sub-section (2) of section 13. By virtue of the proviso to sub-section (S) of section 13

“any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein”.

9. It was certified by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory that, although the sample sent for examination conformed to the standard prescribed, it was adulterated under section 2(i) of the Act as it contained 12.4% of insect infested seeds. It was relying on Ex. D1 certificate that the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the sample contained insect infested seeds and hence the sample was adulterated within the meaning of section 2(i)(f) of the Act. The counsel for the respondent submitted that in order to bring the case under section 2(i)(f) of the Act, it is not enough if the prosecution proves that the sample contained some percentage of insect infested seeds, but it must further prove that the sample purchased by Pw. 1 was unfit for human consumption and that in the absence of such evidence no conviction can be entered in this case.

10. The only question that falls for determination in this appeal is therefore whether the cumin seeds sold by the accused were adulterated within the meaning of section 2[i][f] of the Act. The answer to this depends upon a proper and correct understanding and interpretation of the phrase “or is otherwise unfit for human consumption” occurring in section 2[i][f]. Clause [i] of section 2 of the Act gives the definition of “adulterated”. An article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated, if it falls under any of the clauses [a] to [1] of section 2[i]. The definition is wide enough and if an article does not fall under one particular clause it may still be adulterated if it comes under any other clause.

11. Section 2[i][f] reads:

“If the article consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, disgusting, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption.”

12. If the phrase “or is otherwise unfit for human consumption” appearing in sub-clause (f) is read disjunctively, an article of food which is insect infested even to a email extent has to be deemed to be adulterated irrespective of the fact whether it is fit or unfit for human consumption. This could not have been the intention of the Legislature. The dictionary meaning of the word “otherwise” is “by other causes or means”. If, in this sub-clause, instead of the word “otherwise” the words “by other causes or means” are substituted, it would read as follows:

“If the article consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, disgusting, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect infested or is by other causes or means unfit for human consumption.”

13. As it is not possible to enumerate all causes by which an article of food may become unfit for human consumption, after specifically mentioning in the first part of the sub-clause some of the well-known ??? on account of which an article of food may become unfit for human consumption, the latter part took within its ambit any other cause or means which may make such article of food also unfit for human consumption. The adjectives which precede must be read with the concluding phrase “or is otherwise unfit for human consumption”. A careful reading of the sub-clause, particularly the word “otherwise” suggests that all the adjectives used earlier refer to the quality of the article being unfit for human consumption. The governing ingredient of sub-clause (f) is the quality of the article being unfit for human consumption. To attract S. 2(i)(f) of the Act, an article of food must be unfit for human consumption either because it consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, disgusting, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or because it is insect-infested or on account of any other cause. To put it differently, the phrase “or is otherwise unfit for human consumption” has to be read conjunctively and on this construction of this sub-clause, proof of unfitness of the article for human consumption is an essential ingredient of the definition. Preferring this construction, the Supreme Court in Delhi Municipality v. Kacheroo Mal ((1976) 1 SCC 412 : AIR. 1976 SC. 394) observed that this construction comports best with reason, common sense, realities, the tenor of this provision and the main purpose and scheme of the Act. The mere fact that any part of an article of food was insect-infested may not be conclusive proof of its being adulterated within the meaning of sub-clause (f), as is clear from the rules framed under the Act in respect of certain articles of food laying down the minimum proportion of insect-infestation or insect damage which is premissible and which is not deemed to make the article unfit for human consumption. The standard prescribed for food grains shows that the presence of 5% by weight of fungus-damaged grain and the uric acid content arising as a result of insect-damage in the proporation of 20 milligrams per 100 grams sample of the grain, is permissible. Similarly in the case of coriander (Dhania), the proportion of extraneous matter including dust, dirt, stones, lumps of earth, chaff, stem or straw, edible seeds of fruits other than coriander and insect-damaged seeds shall not exceed 8.0 per cent by weight. In the case of Nutmeg (Jaiphal), the proportion of extraneous matter and infestation shall not exceed 3.0 per cent by weight. The Supreme Court in the case cited above held that the adjectives used in the sub-clause (f) indicate presumptive but not absolute criteria as to the quality of the article, that in each case it must be proved that the article was unfit for human consumption and that in the case of articles of food for which the rules lay down minimum standard of purity with reference to any of the vices specified in this sub-clause, mere proof of fact that the impurity was in excess of that permitted by the prescribed standard, would be conclusive to show that the article was unfit for human consumption;

14. Ext. P5, the report of the Public Analyst in this case has been superseded Ex. D1, the certificate. The only defect noticed in the sample by the Central Food Laboratory was that it contained 12.4% of insect-infested seeds. Neither the report nor the certificate states that the sample was unfit for human consumption. There is no evidence either oral or documentary to show that the cumin seeds purchased by Pw. 1 was unfit for human consumption.

15. Although the reasoning of the trial court and the ground on which the acquittal is based are wrong and unsustainable, the acquittal has to be sustained in the absence of any evidence that the sample was adulterated under S. 2(i)(f) of the Act. The appeal therefore fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

16. Dismissed.