- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi v. Ramji Dass And State
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, Delhi Municipal Corporation, filed an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent Ramji Dass, who was prosecuted under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. On 12th September 1969, a Food Inspector took a sample of Suji from the respondent's grocery shop. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst and was found to be adulterated due to insect infestation, with living insects present. Following the report, a complaint was filed, and the trial Magistrate convicted the respondent, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The respondent appealed to the Sessions Judge, who set aside the conviction on the ground that the Public Analyst's report did not specify the extent of insect infestation, thus it could not be concluded that the Suji was unfit for human consumption. The Municipal Corporation then appealed against this acquittal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the presence of living insects in a food article constitutes adulteration under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act without further proof that the article is unfit for human consumption.
- Whether the Public Analyst's failure to specify the extent or number of insects affects the determination of adulteration.
- Whether the amended quality standards allowing rodent hair and excreta include living or dead insects.
- Whether the time lapse between sample collection and analysis could have resulted in insect infestation after sampling, affecting the validity of the adulteration finding.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Insect infestation alone constitutes adulteration under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, without needing to prove the food is unfit for human consumption.
- Relied on the precedent Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia, asserting that insect infestation amounts to adulteration.
Respondent's Arguments
- The sample was taken on 12th September but analysed on 17th September, allowing for the possibility that living insects developed after sampling.
- The Public Analyst's report was vague as it did not specify the number or percentage of living insects, which could be minimal and not amount to infestation.
- The amended rule permitting rodent hair and excreta up to five pieces per kilogram includes dead or living insects, thus permitting their presence.
- Supported his contention by referencing the statement of the Food Inspector that rodent hair includes dead insects and their hairs.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia, (1979) II F.A.G 218 | Insect infestation alone constitutes adulteration under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. | The court acknowledged this precedent to support the principle that insect infestation amounts to adulteration without further proof of unfitness for consumption. |
| M.G.D v. Bhawani Shankar, 1975 (Vol. I) F.A.G p. 251 | Definition and interpretation of "insect infested" implying a large number or swarm of insects. | The court applied this principle to conclude that the presence of a few insects does not necessarily amount to infestation. |
| Raghbir Sharan v. State, 1972 F.A.G 389 | Clarification on what constitutes insect infestation in food articles. | The court relied on this case to support the view that "insect infested" means more than a minimal presence of insects. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court acknowledged that under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, insect infestation itself constitutes adulteration without the need to prove that the food is unfit for consumption. However, it analyzed the facts and found merit in the respondent's contention regarding the time lapse between sampling and analysis, which could have allowed insects to develop after the sample was taken. The court noted the absence of details about the number of living insects in the Public Analyst's report, suggesting the possibility that only a few insects were present, which may not amount to infestation as legally understood. Furthermore, the court rejected the respondent's argument that the amended rule permitting rodent hair and excreta includes insects, clarifying that "rodent hair" refers exclusively to hair from rodents and does not encompass insects. Considering the elapsed time since the offence and the factual uncertainties, the court found no reason to interfere with the acquittal.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is dismissed.
The court upheld the acquittal of the respondent, finding that the evidence did not conclusively establish insect infestation as required under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The decision directly affects the parties by affirming the respondent's acquittal and does not set any new legal precedent beyond the application of existing principles to the facts of this case.
R.N Aggarwal, J.:— This is an appeal by the Delhi Municipal Corporation against the acquittal of the Respondent Ramji Dass who was prosecuted under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
2. On 12th September 1969 Shri V.P Anand, Food Inspector, took a sample of Suji from the Grocery shop of the respondent at Nehru Bazar.
3. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who found the sample to be adulterated on account of insect infestation. The sample was analysed on 17th September 1969 and the report of the analysis was as follows:
“Moisture : 12.05% Total ash : 0.51% Gluten : 6.42%
Insect Infestation : Present Odour : Agreeable
Living insects are present.
Total amount of Suji passes in No. 100 sieve-1.14%.
The same is adulterated as the same is insect infested (living insects are present).”
4. On the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst a complaint under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was filed against the respondent. The learned trial Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offence charged with and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 120 days.
5. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Magistrate the accused went in appeal to the Sessions Judge. Shri N.L Kakkar, Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal on 19th September 1975 set aside the conviction and sentence. The appeal was allowed on the ground that the Public Analyst in the report had not given the extent of insect infestation and, therefore, it could not be said that the sample of Suji was unfit for human consumption. Against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has come in appeal.
6. Shri M.N Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that if an article of food is insect infested that by itself is an offence and it has not to be further proved that the article of food was unfit for human consumption. The counsel in support of his contention relied upon Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia, (1979) II F.A.G 218. It is not disputed by Mr. Gurcharan Singh, on behalf of the” respondent, that the definition clause 2 (1)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been interpreted to mean that if an article of food is insect infested that would amount to adulteration within the meaning of Section 2(1)(f) and it has not further to be proved that the article was unfit for human consumption.
7. Mr. Gurcharan Singh, however, contended that the sample was taken on 12th September 1969 and it was analysed on 17th September and it was possible that the living insects had developed in the article, of food after the sample was taken. Mr. Gurcharan Singh referred to the statement of Dr. Ajwani, Deputy Health Officer, who had stated that the normal life cycle of an insect is 1 to 14 days. Mr. Gurcharan Singh further contended that the report of the Public Analyst is vague inasmuch as he had not given the number or the percentage of living insects found in the sample. According to Mr. Gurcharan Singh if the living insects were only 3 or 4 in number then it could not be said that the article of food was insect infested. Mr. Gurcharan Singh further contended that item A. 18.03 (framed under rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules) which lays down the standard of quality for Suji was amended in 1970 and the amended rule permitted rodent hair and excreta upto 5 pieces in one K.G, and according to the counsel the words “rodent hair” would mean and include living or dead insects. Mr. Gurcharan Singh in support of his above contention relied upon the statement of the Food Inspector dated 12th August 1970 wherein he had stated that rodent hair mean dead insects and the hair formed on them.
8. We do not agree in this contention. According to the Twentieth Century Dictionary the word “rodent” means—“gnawing: of the Rodentia, a member of the Rodentia, Rodentia, an order of mammals with prominent incisor teeth and no canines, as squirrels, beavers, rats, rabbits”. In our view, the words “rodent hair” do not include dead or living insects. The amendment in the standard of quality of Suji appears to have been brought about for the reason that it was well known that rats, mouse, etc. frequently inhabit the places where atta and like articles are stored and, therefore, sometimes it was likely that they leave their hair and excreta in those articles. The amended definition, in our opinion, would cover only cases where hair or excreta upto 5 pieces in one K.G are found but it would not include dead or living insects.
9. We, however, feel that there is some force in the first two contentions of Mr. Gurcharan Singh. The article of food was taken on 12th September and it was analysed on 17th September, There was a time lapse of about 6 days in the taking of the sample and its examination. Dr. Ajwani has stated that an insect may develop from an egg to an insect in about 1 to 14 days. It is possible that the living insects may have developed in the sample in question after the sample was taken. P.W 4 gave evidence that the sample of Suji was taken out of a gunny bag which was half full and that he did not see any insect when the sample was taken. We also find that the report of the Public Analyst does not mention the number of living insects found in the sample which could mean that the number of insects may be only 2 or 3. The expression “insect infested” would mean a swarm of insects or at least a large number of insects. The Food Inspector may have from the presence of few insects concluded that the article of food was insect infested. See M.G.D v. Bhawani Shankar, 1975 (Vol. I) F.A.G p. 251 and Raghbir Sharan v. State, 1972 F.A.G 389.
10. For the above reasons and also in view of the fact that the offence took place in 1969 and now more than 14 years have elapsed, we do not think it to be a fit case for interference. This appeal is dismissed.
11. Appeal dismissed.
Alert