- (1.) The petitioners who are traders in foodgrains, edible oils and other articles of food, challenge the validity of S. 7 read with Ss. 2 (v) and 2 (ix) and S.19 (2) (i) and S. 10 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 37 of 1954 and the rules framed thereunder. They claim that by the Act and the rules the fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 14, 19 (1) (g) and 20 (3) of the Constitution are infringed.
(2.) The Parliament, with a view to control adulteration and misbranding of articles of food, enacted the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The petitioners concede that they do not claim a fundamental right to carry on business in adulterated or misbranded foodstuffs: they claim that they are honest traders, and do not resort to any malpractice, still in carrying on their business in foodstuffs they are, by the Act, subjected to restrictions which are not reasonable. They contend that the Act presumes every trader charged with an offence under S. 16 (1) (a) to be guilty and imposes upon him the burden of proving that he is not guilt of the offence charged, by establishing facts which are not within his knowledge, or which without great expense wholly incommensurate with his means and the facility available to him he cannot establish. They also claim that by the Act they are denied the equal protection of the laws and the guarantee of Art. 20 (3) of the Constitution is infringed.
(3.) The relevant provisions of the Act may first be noticed. Section 7 of the Act provides: "No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute- (i) any adulterated food; (ii) any misbranded food; (iii) any article of food for the sale of which a licence is prescribed, except in accordance with the conditions of the licence; (iv) any article of food the sale of which is for the time being prohibited by the Food (Health) Authority in the interest of public health; or (v) any article of food in contravention of any other provision of this Act or of any rule made thereunder." By S. 10 a food inspector appointed under S. 9 (1) of the Act is authorised to take samples of any articles of food from any person selling such article, or from any person who is in the course of conveying, delivering or preparing to deliver such article to a purchaser or consignee, or from a consignee after delivery of any such article to him, and to send such sample for analysis to the public analyst, and with the previous approval of the health officer having jurisdiction in the local area concerned, or with the previous approval of the Food (Health) Authority to prohibit the sale of any article of food in the interest of public health. Sub-section (5) of S. 13 provides: "Any document purporting to be a report signed by a public analyst, unless it has been superseded under subsection (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 sections 272 to 276 of the Infian Penal Code: "Provided that 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." Section 16 (1) prescribes the penalties cls. (a) and (f) which are relevant provide: "(1) If any person- (a) whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf imports into India or manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distributes any article of food - (i)which is adulterated or misbranded or the sale of which is prohibited by the Food (Health) Authority in the interest of public health ; (ii) other than an article of food referred to in sub-clause (i), in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule made thereunder; or xx xx xx (f) whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf gives to the vendor a false warranty in writing in respect of any article of food sold by him, he shall in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of section 6, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to six years and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees: Provided that x x x x Sec. 19 deals with the defences which may, and which may not, be allowed in prosecutions under the Act. It provides: "(1) It shall be no defence in a prosecution for an offence pertaining to sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food to allege merely that the vendor was ignorant of the nature, substance or quality of the food sold by him or that the purchaser having purchased any article for analysis was not prejudiced by the sale. (2) A vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves- (a) that he purchased the article of food- (i) in a case where a licence is prescribed for the sale thereof, from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer; (ii) in any other case, from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer, with a written warranty in the prescribed form; and (b) that the article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he sold it in the same state as he purchased it. (3) Any person by whom a warranty as is referred to in Section 14 is alleged to have been given shall be entitled to appear at the hearing and give evidence." "Food" is defined in Section 2 (v) as meaning "any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes (a) any article which ordinarily enters into, or is used in the composition or preparation of human food, and (b) any flavouring matter or conditions." Clauses (i) and (ix) of Section 2 define the expressions "adulterated" and "misbranded.";