Decided on May 02,1997

GIAN CHAND Respondents


M.SRINIVASAN,C.J. - - (1.)There is no merit in this proposed appeal. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that it is not necessary for the purpose of proving an offence under the provisions of the Act to establish that there was a sale or that adulterated food article was being kept by the accused for the purpose of sale. According to learned Counsel, even if it stored, that is sufficient for prosecution under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The question whether mere storage is sufficient or not has been considered by the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Laxmi Narain Tandon etc., AIR 1976 SC 621 The Court has held that the terms "store" and "distribute" take their colour from the context and the collocation of words in which they occur in sections 7 and 16, "storage" or "distribution" of an adulterated article of food for the purpose other than for sale does not fall within the mischief of the section. Learned Counsel contends that after the judgment of the Supreme Court section 7 as well as section 10 have been amended, and, therefore, the decision of the Court is not applicable.
(2.)Section 7 as it reads at present is in no way different from the section considered by the Supreme Court insofar as it is relevant for the purpose of this case. The section as it stood at the time of the judgment of the Supreme Court has been set out in the judgment and in so far as this section is concerned, the amendment will not make any difference. In any event, section 10 as it stands has made the position worse for the prosecution. Section 10 (1) provides that a Food Inspector shall have the power (a) to take sample of may article of food from (i) any person selling such article (ii) any person who is in the course of conveying delivering or preparing to deliver such article to a purchaser or consignee ; (iii) a consignee after delivery of any such article to him
(3.)The power given to the Food Inspector is only to take sample under the conditions mentioned in the said section None of the conditions set out in the section referred to above has been satisfied in the present case. It has not been proved in the evidence that the accused was a person selling the article ; nor it has been established that the accused was in the course of conveying, delivering or preparing to deliver such article to a purchaser or consignee.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.