MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Vs. RAM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgement will dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos. 117-D of 1964 and 118-D of 1964.

(2.) On 29th December, 1962, at about 3 -25 P.M. Food Inspectors went to the shop of M/s Kahan Ghee laboratories situated at premises No. 2774, Gali No. 14, Beedanpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and took separate samples of pure ghee from the respondent, Ram Parkash, who was sitting at the sale counter of the above shop. These samples were taken from sealed tins purporting to contain pure ghee after complying with all the formalities required by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the rules framed there under. The tins from which the samples were taken were also taken into custody. Thereafter these samples were sent to the Public Analyst who reported that the samples fulfilled the standards laid down for pure ghee and were unadulterated. Ram Parkash was, however, prosecuted in respect of the tins which were seized for infringing rule 32(b) and (e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The prosecution case was that the lables on the tins of ghee seized by the Food Inspectors did not conform to the packing and labelling rules under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in as much as the name and business addresss of the manufacturer or packer or vendor and the batch number or Code number had not been specified on the label as required under the said rule 32(b) and (e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

(3.) The grounds for the acquittal given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are that. .... ."the words Batch number and Code number are not defined in the Act or the Rules and it was not clear what useful purpose would have been served by giving any fictitious or unintelligible markings on the tins and how these markings were intended to secure the character, quality or purity of the food stuffs packed in the tins or how the public could have been made wiser by these marks so as to prevent their being deceived or misled about the quality etc. of the food stuffs that they were buying." It has been further held that it did not appear to have been the intention of the legislature or the framers of the rules that such Code numbers or Batch numbers were to be given in all cases irrespective of the nature of the commodity to be marketted. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also held that, in any case, it appeared to be a very technical breach of the rules and there was no clear breach of the spirit of law and that the accused had no guilty intention in failing to give the Code number and Batch number and thus deserved to be acquitted. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi has appealed against these orders of acquittal by special leave. Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 1955, may, at this stage, be read . It lays down as under :-