Head Note:
In
the present case, according to the prosecution, the appellant, a Superintendent
of Jail, had stored Rice and Haldi and, therefore, his act comes within the
mischief of Section 7 and 16 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid, what needs
to be decided is as to whether the expression ‘store’ as used in Section 7 and Section
16 of the Act would mean storage simplicitor or storage for sale. We have
referred to the provisions of Section 7, Section 10 and Section 16 of the Act
and from their conjoint reading, it will appear that the Act is intended to
prohibit and penalise the sale of any adulterated article of food. In our
opinion, the term ‘store’ shall take colour from the context and the
collocation in which it occurs in Section 7 and 16 of the Act. Applying the
aforesaid principle, we are of the opinion, that ‘storage’ of an adulterated
article of food other than for sale does not come within the mischief of
Section 16 of the Act.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 541-542 OF 2014
RUPAK KUMAR …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. …RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT: CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD,J.
The
petitioner is aggrieved by the order whereby his prayer for quashing the order
taking cognizance under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act and issuing process has been declined.
Short
facts giving rise to the present special leave petitions are that when the petitioner
was posted as the Superintendent of District Jail, Bihar Sharif, the Food
Inspector visited the jail premises and collected samples of various materials
including Haldi and Rice. Those articles were stored for consumption of the prisoners.
The samples so collected were sent for examination and analysis and, according
to the report of the Public Analyst, Haldi and Rice were not found in
conformity with the prescribed standard and, therefore, held to be adulterated.
Accordingly, two separate prosecution reports were submitted alleging
commission of an offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)
of the Act and by order dated 18th of March, 2006 directed for issuance of
process in both the cases. The petitioner assailed both the orders in separate
revision applications filed before the Sessions Judge; but both were dismissed.
Thereafter, the petitioner preferred two separate applications, being Criminal
Miscellaneous No. 15527 of 2010 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 15471 of 2010
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court. The
High Court, by the orders impugned in the present special leave petitions, has
dismissed both the criminal miscellaneous applications. It is in these circumstances
the petitioner has filed the present
special leave petitions.
Leave granted.
Mr. Nagendra Rai, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
raises a very short point. He submits that the appellant at the relevant time
was the Superintendent of Jail and food items which have been found to be
adulterated were not stored for sale but were meant for consumption of the
inmates. He submits that according to the prosecution report, these food items
were not stored for sale and, therefore, the allegations made do not come
within the mischief of Section 16(1)(a) of the Act.
We have bestowed our consideration to the submission advanced and we
find substance in the same. Section 7 of the Act, inter alia, prohibits manufacture
and sale of certain articles of food, the same reads as follows:
“Section 7. Prohibitions of manufacture, sale, etc. of certain articles
of food. – 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;
v.
any
article of food in contravention of any other provision of this Act or of any
rule made thereunder; or
vi.
any
adulterant.
Explanation-For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed
to store any adulterated food or misbranded food or any article of food
referred to in clause (iii) or clause (iv) or clause (v) if he stores such food
for the manufacture therefrom of any article of food for sale.”
From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that
Section 7 prohibits a person to ‘manufacture for sale’ or ‘store’ or ‘sell’ or ‘distribute’,
inter alia, any adulterated food. Contravention of Section 7 by any person is
punishable under Section 16 of the Act. Section 10 of the Act talks about the
power of Food Inspector and under this Section, he is empowered to take sample
of any article of food from any person selling such article. It is apt to
reproduce Section 10(1) and 10(2), which read as follows:
“Section
10. Powers of food inspectors. - (1) A Food Inspector shall have power-
a)
to take samples of any article of food from-
a)
(i)
any person selling such article;
(i)
(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; and
b)
to send such sample for analysis
to the public analyst for the local area within which such sample has been
taken;
c)
with the previous approval of
the Local (Health) Authority 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.
Explanation-For the
purposes of sub-clause (iii) of clause (a), “consignee” does not include a person
who purchases or receives any article of food for his own consumption.
(2) Any food inspector
may enter and inspect any place where any article of food is manufactured, or stored
for sale, or stored for the manufacture of any other article of food for sale,
or exposed or exhibited for sale or where any adulterant is manufactured or
kept, and take samples of such article of food or adulterant for analysis: Provided
that no sample of any article of food, being primary food, shall be taken under
this sub-section if it is not intended for sale as such food.”
A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that the
Food Inspector has the power to take sample of any article of food from any
person selling such article under sub-section (1) whereas sub-section (2)
confers on him the power to enter and inspect any place where any article of
food is manufactured, stored or exposed for sale and take samples of such
articles of food for analysis. Section 16 provides for penalties. Section
16(1)(a)(i) and 16(1)(a)(ii), which are relevant for the purpose read as follows:
“Section 16.
Penalties. -(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (IA) 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 within the meaning of sub-clause (m) of clause
(ia) of section 2 or misbranded within the meaning of clause (ix) of that
section or the sale of which is prohibited under any provision of this Act or
any rule made thereunder or by an order of the Food (Health) Authority;
(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
xxx xxx xxx”
According to this section any person, who by himself or by any other
person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells any adulterated
article is liable to be punished.
In the present case, according to the prosecution, the appellant, a
Superintendent of Jail, had stored Rice and Haldi and, therefore, his act comes
within the mischief of Section 7 and 16 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid,
what needs to be decided is as to whether the expression ‘store’ as used in
Section 7 and Section 16 of the Act would mean storage simplicitor or storage
for sale. We have referred to the provisions of Section 7, Section 10 and Section
16 of the Act and from their conjoint reading, it will appear that the Act is
intended to prohibit and penalise the sale of any adulterated article of food.
In our opinion, the term ‘store’ shall take colour from the context and the
collocation in which it occurs in Section 7 and 16 of the Act. Applying the
aforesaid principle, we are of the opinion, that ‘storage’ of an adulterated
article of food other than for sale does not come within the mischief of
Section 16 of the Act. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court
in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Laxmi Narain Tandon, (1976)
1 SCC 546, this submission does not need further elaboration. In the said
case it has been held as follows:
“14. From a
conjoint reading of the above referred provisions, it will be clear that the
broad scheme of the Act is to prohibit and penalize the sale, or import,
manufacture, storage or distribution for sale of any adulterated article of
food. 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 a purpose other than for
sale does not fall within the mischief of this section…………………”
In the case in hand, it is not the allegation that the appellant had
stored Haldi and Rice for sale. Therefore, in our opinion, the allegations made
do not constitute any offence and, hence, the prosecution of the appellant for
an offence under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act shall be an abuse of the process
of the Court.
In the result we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned orders and
quash the appellant’s prosecution in both the cases.
………………………………………………………………J
(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)
………………………………………………………………J
(PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)
NEW DELHI,
MARCH 04, 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment