Holding

The prosecution proved the sample was adulterated and the Food Inspector complied with Rules 17 and 18; therefore the conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is upheld.

Summary

The Food Inspector purchased a bottle of synthetic syrup (sarbath) from the shop of Benny Thomas and sent the sample for analysis, which showed it to be adulterated. Thomas was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Sections 7(1) and 2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and relevant Rules. On appeal, Thomas contended that the sample collection violated Rules 17 and 18, and that the articles were not intended for sale, rendering the provisions inapplicable. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that the purchase was made, the receipt was issued, and the sample was dispatched in accordance with Rules 17 and 18, with parts sent to the public analyst and the Local Health Authority as required. The Court held that the prosecution had established the adulteration and that there was no procedural breach, thereby upholding the conviction. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the sample taken by the Food Inspector after purchase complied with the procedural requirements of Rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
Whether the articles purchased were intended for sale, affecting the applicability of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Whether the conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Sections 7(1) and 2(ia)(m) of the Act and the corresponding Rules is valid.

Legislation cited

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954s. 16(1)(a)(i), s. 2(ia)(m), s. 7(1)
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955s. Appendix B, Item A.07.08, s. Rule 17, s. Rule 18, s. Rule 5, s. Rule 50

Subjects

Food adulterationSample collectionProcedural compliancePrevention of Food Adulteration ActCriminal appeal

Judgment

[2008] 10 S.C.R. 71

BENNY THOMAS A
V.
FOOD INSPECTOR, KOCHI AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 998 of 2008)
JULY 7, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - s. 16 (1) (a)
(i) r/w s. 7 (1) ands. 2 (ia)(m) I Prevention of Food Adulteration
Rules, 1955 - r. 5 rlw Appendix B, Item A. 07. 08 and r. 50, 17 c
and 18 - Food sample - Collected by Food Inspector after
effective purchase - On analysis sample found to be adulter-
, ated - Initiation of prosecution - Conviction by courts below -
..,......-- On appeal, held: In the facts of the case, prosecution proved
that the sample was adulterated - There was no violation of rr.
"' D
17 and 18 - Public Health. and Safety
Food Inspector (PW1) while inspecting shop of the
appellant, purchased one of the four bottles of synthetic
syrup kept in the shop and received voucher for payment
(Exbt P-4). The analysis report of the sample of the syrup E
showed that it did not conform to the standards pre-
scribed under the rules and therefore was adulterated.
Appellant-accused was prosecuted. He was found guilty
u/s 16 (1) (a) (i) r/w s. 7 (1) and s. 2 (ia) (m) of Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and also u/r 5 r/w Appendix F
B, Item A.07.08 and r. 50 of Prevention of Food Adultera-
tion Rules, 1955. Appellate Court as well as revisional
court confirmed the conviction. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: 1. The prosecution has been able to estab-
lish that the sarbath purchased from the accused by PW1
is adulterated. Admittedly, the sample was colleeted by
the Food Inspector after effecting purchase and had given
71 ,..,
I I
I•
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A the receipt. As rightly noted by the High Court the articles
were intended for sale. When the accused was questioned
under section 313 Cr.P.C., he conceded that he had sold
sarbath to PW1. Further the sale of sarbath to PW1 is
proved by Ex. P4 voucher issued by the accused towards
B the purchase and acceptance of its cost from PW1. He
had also given Ex. P3 Form VI notice to the accused, the
rece'ipt of which has been acknowledged by him as per
Ex. P3 (a) endorsement and signature. [Paras 7 and 8]
[74-E,F,G,H; 75-A & F]
C 2. From the evidence of PW-1 it is clear that at one
point of time the sample was handed over to the public
analyst the succeeding day of taking the sample from the
shop of the accused. PW-1 also stated that other two parts
of the sample alongwith Form No.VII Me.morandum and
D the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the
sample bottles were handed over to the Local Health Au-
thority by PW-1 and copy of the information had been
given to PW-2, the Local Health Authority. PW-2 stated in
his evidence that he had received two parts of the sample
E alongwith Form VII and the specimen impression of the
seal used to seal the sample in separate sealed cover.
Therefore, there was no violation of Rules 17 and 18 of
the Rules. [Para 10] [76-G,H; 77-A & B]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
F No. 998 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 25.5.2006 of
the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Rev. Pet. No.
1917of2004
G K. Rajeev for the Appellant.
R. Sathish for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
H
BENNY THOMAS v. FOOD INSPECTOR, KOCHI 73
& ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J]

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a A
learned Single Judge of the Kera la High Court dismissing the
Criminal Revision Petition which was filed questioning correct-
ness of the conviction for offence punishable under Section
16(1 )(a)(i) read with Section 7(1) and Section 2(ia)(m) of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the 'Act') B
and also under Rule 5 read with Appendix B, Item A.07.08 and
Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in
short the 'Rules'). The appellant was sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/
- with default stipulation as recorded by learned Judicial Mag- c
istrate, 1st Class, Kochi. The learned IV Addi. Sessions Judge,
Ernakulam in appeal modified the sentence and reduced it to
simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/-
with default stipulation.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: D
On 22.5.2000 at about 4.00 p.m., the Food Inspector,
P.W.1 inspected the shop of the appellant by name "Bejoy Fruits
and Vegetables". He found four bottles of Sarbath (synthetic
syrup) each of 700 ml. capacity, which were kept for sale. He
bought one bottle of synthetic syrup, on paying Rs.40/-, Ex.P.4 E
being the voucher for payment. He sampled it according to the
procedure. After analysis, he obtained Ex.P.12 report, which
showed that the sample did not conform to the standards pre-
scribed under the rules and, therefore, was adulterated. Accord-
ingly, he proceeded against the appellant. Since accused ab- F
jured guilt, trial was held.
4. Four witnesses were examined and 21 documents were
marked on the side of the prosecution and three documents
were marked on the side of the defence. After appreciation of G
the evidence, the appellant was found guilty, convicted and sen-
tenced accordingly. Appeal by appellant resulted only in reduc-
tion of sentence. The revision petition did not bring any relief.
5. Stand before the High Court was that articles purchased
by the Food Inspector (PW-1) were not kept for sale and as H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 10 S.C.R.

A such the same were not the food articles. It was further submit-
..
ted that there was no enquiry made by the Food Inspector as to ,
whether these articles were kept for sale. The High Court did
not accept the stand. Referring to the evidence of PW-1, it. noted
that PW-1 had introduced himself as Food Inspector and had
B expressed willingness to purchase 700 ml. of 'synthetic syrup
(Sarbath)' which was kept for sale. He had purchased it after
giving Rs.40/-. The High Court noted that if the articles were not
kept for sale the question of selling it to the Food Inspector does
not arise. It found that the articles purchased were for human
c consumable and were kept for sale and on analysis did not
conform to the requirement. It held that there was no violation of
Rules 17 and 18 of the Rules as claimed. Noting that the mini-
mum sentence has been imposed, revision petition was dis-
missed.
,I.
D 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no
enquiry was conducted of the samples as to whether articles
were kept for sale. It was further submitted that the articles were
not meant for sale and, therefore, the said Rules have no appli-
cation.
E 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State o~ the other
hand supported the impugned order. Admittedly, the sample was
collected by the Food Inspector after effecting purchase and
had given the receipt. As rightly noted by the High Court the
articles were intended for sale. "'!
F
8. The complainant, Food Inspector, Cochin Circle has
given evidence as PW1. He has spoken about Sarbath, the
food article involved in this case from the shop of the accused
and also the various formalities done by him in sampling the
same. The fact that the sarbath was purchased from him is not
G
disputed by the accused. When he was questioned under sec-
tion 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the
'Cr.P.C') he conceded that he had sold sarbath to PW1. Fur-
ther the sale of sarbath to PW1 is proved by Ex. P4 voucher
issued by the accused towards the purchase and acceptance
H
BENNY THOMAS v. FOOD INSPECTOR, KOCHI 75
& ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J]

of its cost from PW1. He had also given Ex. P3 Form VI notice A
to the accused, the receipt of which has been acknowledged
by him as per Ex. P3 (a) endorsement and signature. As PW1,
the Food Inspector has stated that he had disclosed to the ac-
cused the intention of the purchase of sarbath from him, what is
contended by the accused is that the sarbath purchased from B
him was not intended for sale as such. According to PW1, the
purchased sarbath was sampled by him at the spot as provided
in the Rules, and one part of the sample prepared by him was
sent to the public analyst for analysis and the remaining two
parts of the sample were forwarded to the Local (Health) Au- c
thority, and received the result of the analysis of the sample from
the public analyst, through Local (Health) Authority. Ex. P12 is
the report of the Public Analyst, as per which the sample does
not conform to the standards prescribed for sarbath under the
Rules and so the sample is adulterated. On receipt of the inti- D
mation regarding the launching of prosecution against him, the
accused filed a petition before the court below seeking to send
one part of the sample kept with the local (Health) Authority to
the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. Accordingly, one part
of the sample was called for from the Local' (Health) Authority
and sent to Central Food Laboratory. Ex. P17 is the report ob- E
tained from Central Food Laboratory, as per which the sample
does not conform the standard prescribed for sarbath under
the rules and is, therefore, adulterated. Thus the prosecution
has been able to establish that the sarbath purchased from the
accused by PW1 is adulterated. F

9. One of the contentions of the appellant/accused is that
the Food Inspector had violated the mandatory provisions con-
tained in Rule 17 & 18 of the Rules and so he is eligible for an
acquittal. Rules 17 & 18 of Rules are as follows:
G
"17. Manner of dispatching containers of samples :- The
containers of the· sample shall be dispatched in the
following manner, namely:

a) The sealed container of one part of the sample for H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A analysis and a memorandum in Form VII shall be
sent in a sealed packet to the public analyst
immediately but not later than the succeeding working
day by any suitable means:
b) The sealed containers of the remaining two parts of
B the sample and two copies of the memorandum in J.<

Form VII shall be sent in a sealed packet to the Local
(Health) Authority immediately but not later than the
succeeding working day by any suitable means:

c (c) The sealed container of one of the remaining two
parts of the sample and a copy of the memorandum
in Form VI I kept with the Local (Health) Authority shall
within a period of 7 days be sent to the public analyst
on requisition made by him to it by any suitable
means: ).
D
Provided that in the case of a sample of food which has
been taken from container bearing Agmark seal, the
memorandum in Form VII shall contain the following
additional information, namely:
E a) Grade
b) Agmark Label No. /Batch No.
c) Name of Packing station
18. Memorandum and impression of sea I to be sent ·1
F
separately: A copy of the memorandum and specimen
impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be
sent, in a sealed packet separately to the Public Analyst
by any suitable means immediately but not later than the
G succeeding working day."
10. From the evidence of PW-1 it is clear that at one point
of time the sample was handed over to the public analyst on
23.5.2000 i.e. the succeeding day of taking the sample from
the shop of the accused. PW-1 also stated that other two parts
H of the sample alongwith Form NoV!I Memorandum and the
BENNY THOMAS v. FOOD INSPECTOR, KOCHI 77
& ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J]

specimen impression of the seal used to seal the sample bottles A
were handed over to the Local Health Authority by PW-1 and
copy of the information had been given to PW-2, the Local
Health Authority. PW-2 stated in his evidence that he had re-
ceived two parts of the sample alongwith Form VII and the speci-
men impression of the seal used to seal the sample in sepa- B
rate sealed cover. Therefore, as rightly held by the High Court
there was no violation of Rules 17 and 18 of the Rules.
11. The accused in his examination under Section 313 of
the Cr.P.C. admitted that he had sold the articles in question to
PW-1. The plea that the articles were not intended for sale has C
no substance as noted above. The sentence imposed as afore-
noted is minimum and, therefore, the plea, that the sentence is
harsh, has no substance.
12. Looked at from any angle, the appeal is without merit,
deserves dismissal, which we direct.
K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.