Jagjit Singh, J. - (1.) Five petitions (Nos. 33, 35, 51, 62 and 110 of 1969), under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure were referred to a larger Bench by P. S. Safeer, J. and were placed before us for hearing. All the five petitions relate to the sale of Kaju (cashewnuts) by certain shopkeepers to Food Inspectors of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for analysis. On the samples sent to the Public Analysts these were found to be insect-infested to varying extents. Petition No. 33 relates to the case against Shri Dhan Raj from whom Shri B. R. Kochhar, Food Inspector, purchased a quantity of Kaju pieces on October 14, 1968. On one of the samples being sent to Shri Sudhamoy Roy Public Analyst was analysed on October 26, 1968 and according to the report of the Public Analyst dated November 8, 1968, was insect-infested to the extent of 16.2% and was, therefore, stated to be adulterated. Petition No. 35 is in respect of the case against Shri Pradhan Singh from whom Shri Sohan Lal Mehra, Food Inspector, Purchased a quantity of Kaju for analysis on July 10, 1968. On one of the samples being sent to the Public Analyst it was analysed on July 11, 1968. According to the report of Shri Sudhamoy Roy Public Analyst, the sample of the Kaju was insect-infested to the extent of 5.62% and was, therefore, adulterated. Petition No. 51 pertains to the case against Shri Jagan Nath from whom Shri B. R. Kochhar, Food Inspector, had purchased a quantity of pieces of Kaju on October 9, 1968. On one of the samples being sent to the Public Analyst was analysed on October 14, 1968. According to the report dated October 19, 1968 of Shri Prem Parkash Bhatnagar, Public Analyst, the sample of Kaju was insect-infested to the extent of 32.3% and was, therefore, adulterated. Petition No. 62 is on behalf of Shri Paramjit Singh who on being required by Shri B. R. Kochhar, Food Inspector, sold to the latter on November 13, 1968 a quantity of pieces of Kaju for analysis. The sample sent to the Public Analyst was analysed on November 16, 1968. According to the report of Shri Sudhamoy Roy, Public Analyst, dated November 21, 1968, the sample of Kaju was insect-infested to the extent of 6.93 % and living and dead white insects were present in it. Due to insect-infestation the sample was stated to be adulterated. Petition No. 110 is for quashing the proceedings against Shri Kundan Lal who sold for analysis a quantity of Kaju pieces to Shri Anand, Food Inspector, on December 28, 1968. The sample sent for analysis was analysed on January II, 1969. According to the report of Shri Sudhamoy Roy dated January 14, 1969 it was insect-infested to the extent of 5.33% and was stated to be adulterated.
(2.) The petitioners in petition Nos. 33, 51, 62 and 110 were represented by Bawa Gurcharan Singh while Mr. Frank Anthony appeared for the petitioner in petition No. 35. All the petitioners asked for quashing the proceedings against them which are pending in the courts of Judicial Magistrates on complaints instituted on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,.1954.
(3.) It was urged by Bawa Gurcharan Singh that mere insect-infestation does not make an article of food adulterated in terms of sub-clause (f) of clause (i) of section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act unless the article is also unfit for human consumption. As in the reports of the Public Analysts, on the basis of which complaints were instituted, it was not mentioned that the article of food besides being insect-infested was also unfit for human consumption it was submitted that even if the allegations contained in the complaints were taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety no offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was made out. Another contention raised by Bawa Gurcharan Singh was that in order to be insectinfested an article of food must have living insects in it and that with the exception of the report in the case against Shri Paramjit Singh the reports of the Public Analysts did not mention the presence of living insects in the samples which were analysed. From that fact it was tried to be inferred that if living insects had been found in the samples their presence would have been specifically mentioned. It was as well urged that in the absence of any mention of the existence of living insects it has to be taken that there were no living insects and, therefore, the reports about the samples being insect-infested were on the face of them incorrect. A further contention was raised by the learned counsel that as no standard for quality or purity had been prescribed for Kaju by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, it was arbitrary on the part of the Public Analysts to regard insect-infestation beyond certain limits to constitute adulteration.;