Holding

The word ‘damaged’ in the phrase ‘lost or damaged’ in the proviso to s.13(2C) must be construed broadly to include damage by any cause, including decomposition, irrespective of when it occurs, and the evidence did not establish that the khoya was adulterated within the meaning of the Act.

Summary

A food inspector seized a sample of kutcha khoya from the appellant’s sweet‑meat shop, divided it into three parts and sent one to the public analyst (who found adulteration) and two to the local health authority. The appellant invoked his right under s.13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to have a part examined by the Central Food Laboratory. The part sent to the Calcutta lab was reported decomposed and unfit for analysis; six months later the remaining part was sent to the Ghaziabad lab, which reported the sample adulterated but with a fat content of 33.12 % (above the 20 % minimum). The trial court acquitted, but the High Court convicted. The Supreme Court considered (i) whether “damaged” in the proviso to s.13(2C) includes damage by any cause, including decomposition, occurring before or after dispatch, and (ii) whether the khoya was adulterated under s.2(ia)(1). It held that “damaged” must be given a wide meaning to include any cause of damage, such as decomposition, and that the evidence did not clearly show adulteration beyond the statutory standard. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, the High Court’s judgment and sentence were set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision.

Issues considered

Whether the term ‘damaged’ in the proviso to sub‑section (2C) of s.13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, includes damage due to decomposition and whether such damage can occur before the actual dispatch of the sample.
Whether the kutcha khoya sold by the appellant was ‘adulterated’ within the meaning of s.2(ia)(1) of the Act.

Legislation cited

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954s. s.11(1)(b), s. s.13(2), s. s.13(2B), s. s.13(2C), s. s.13(3), s. s.16(i)(a)(i), s. s.2(ia)(1), s. s.7

Subjects

Food adulterationStatutory interpretationDamaged clausePrevention of Food Adulteration ActCriminal convictionSample analysisRemand

Judgment

513

CHARANJI LAL
A
v.

STATE' OF PUNJAB

October 25, 1983 B
[A.P. SEN AND D.P. MADON, JJ.)

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13
- Words-Lost or dan1aged-Appearing in proviso-lnterpretalion of. lost-Not
confined to loss only after actual despatch of sample but includes loss after court
order for despatch of sample. Danwge-means da,,,. age due _to any reason c
·ihcluding decomposition taking place either before or after order of the court.

Interpretation of statute-Rule of-Words used by legislature do not
always bear a plain meaning.

Words and phrases-Dan1age:_Meaning of.
D
A Food Inspector took a sample of kutcha kho,ra from the shop of the
appellant and after dividing it·into three equal parts and sealing them, sent one
part to the public analyst and.the other two parts to the Local (Health) Autho-
rity. On analysis .the public ~nalys't found the sample to be adulterated, but
the fat content of the sample was reported to be 25%. Prosecution was Jaun-
Ched against the appellant under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, E
1954. On appellant's request under sub-s. (2) of s. 13 of the Act the trial court.
sent one of the remaining two parts of the sample to the Director, Central Food

-
Laboratory. Calcutta for purposes of analysis under sub-s. (2B). The Director
intimated that the saqiple received by him was decomposed and therefore unfit
for analysis and asked for the counter-part of the sample. After a period of
six months the trial court foi'warded the remaining part of the sample to the
Diiector~ Central Foo4 Laboratory, Ghaziabad who reported that the sample F
. was adulterated, but found that the_ fat content of the sample was ~3.12%.
.... The trial court _acquitted the appellant. On appeal by the State the High Court
convicted the appellan~. The questions which arose in 'this appt:al Were :
(i) whether the part of the sample sent by the ti-ial court to the Director
Central Fo'od Laboratory Calcutta was damaged within the meaning of provis~
to sub-s. (2Cj of s. 13 of the Act and (ii) whether the kutcha khoya sold by the
appellant Was adulterated within the meaning of s. 2 (ia) (1) of the Act. G
Partly allowii;ig the appeal and partly remitting the matter to the High
Court, "'
HELD : The problem of interpretation is a problem of meaning of
words and their effectiven_ess to communicate a J>articular thought. In all H
ordinary cases priinaril:Y the· language employed is the determining factor but
words used by the Legislature do llot always bear a plain meaning. '
[520H; 521A]
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984) 1 S,C.R.

. The word ''daniaged" in the collocation Of ihe words "lost or damaged"
A ' appearing in~ the p~oviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13 in. relation to the part of the
sample" Sent by the court to the Director of the Central Food Laborator.Y must,
in the' context, mean "damaged due tO any cause, including decomposition":
The word •'damaged" must be construed in furtherance of the object and
purpose of insertiag the provisions. The whole purpose Of depositing two~parts

B
of the sample with the Local (Health) Authority is that if one of the parts of
the sani.ple is lost or damaged for any reason whatever the' remaining part maY
still be available for analysis. [522 E; G-Hl
\
State v. Joginder Lal Kapoor, (1980) 1 FAC 86 approved.

Rani Prakash v. State· of ilimachal Pradesh (1979) Crl. L.J. 750 and
Darsha.n Lal v. State of Punjab (1982) 1PAC290 overruled.
c "
It is not necessary that the~· loss contemplated by the proviso.
to sub-s.
(2C) of s. 13 should take place ooly after the actual despatch of the part of the
samplf: to the Central Food Laboratory has comn1enced. Even if that.part of
the sample is lost .after the' court has directed it to be sent and before the actual
trans!t has commenced, that part of the sample would te "lost" withiri the
meaning of the prpviso to sub s. (2C) Of s. 13. So far as damage in the .senSe
D of decomposition of that part of the sarriple sent to the Cen-tral Food Labora-
tory is concerned, it may take place either before or after the Court -directs its
despatc~ to the Central Food Laboratory. If damage in the sense of decom-
position were to be interpreted to mean decomposition taking Place during tlle
course of tr<l;nsit, it Wouid frustrate the very object of Parliament in enacting
the proviso to sub'.s; (2C) of s. 13. [524 B-D].
E State v. Joginder Lal Kapoor (1980) 1 FAC 86 overruled.

In the instant case th~~e are certain aspects whic~ are rather disturbing. It

F
is not Clear as 'to liow '.the.fat content of the same article of food the sample of
w_hich, according to-the report of the-Public Ai,ialyst '"was 25% ·went 1,1p to
33.12% as appears from the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory,
Gbaziabad dated December 7, .1978. Further, it·is also not clear that when
the fat· content of the sample was 33.12% and the R.M. Value of the extracted
fat·was 20,37%, still the Director ori analysis found the sample to be adulterated
-
Was it due to the presence of ;iny substance not fo~nd in milk like sesame oil
(til _oil) as found by the Public Analyst, Chandigarh or was it that there was a
higher fat content prescrib~d for khoya _for the State o_f Punjab as appears from
the appended note to the report ? These are some of the aspects Which require .
G' ~ investjgation. There is no !)ther alternative but to, remit the matter to the High
Court for a decision afresh.[526 D-F]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Crin:inal Appeal No. 462
of 1983.
B
· Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment atid · Order dated
the 5th· March, 1980 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 525 DBA of 1980. ·
. cHAl\ANnLAL v. PUNJAB (Sen, J.) ·515

P.P. Rao·, R. Venkataramani and A. Mariaaputham,. for the
Appellant.

S.K. Bagga for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was deHvered by
B
· SsN, J. This appeal by special· leave is directed against the
judgment and sentence of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated
March 3, 1982. by which the High Court has set aside the order of
acquittal recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Moga
.
dated March 14, 1980 and convicted the appellant . under s. 7 read
c
withs. 16 (i) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food l\dult<>ration Act, 1954
('Act' for short) )nd sentenced l\im to undergo rigorous impriSO\J.·
ment for a period of six. months am{ fine- of Rs.. 1000/-, and in
default, rigorous imprisonment for a further period of . three
1
months. .
.

• The questions in this appeal are; firstly, a question of law.as
to whether the word 'damaged' appearing in the proviso to sub-
s. (2C) of s. 13 of the Act is susceptible of a wider construction as
to incl_ude damage due to any cause including decomposition; and

-
• secondly a mixed question of fact and law, as to whether the kutcha
khoya sold by the appellant- was 'adulterated' i.e. not of the nature, E
substance or quality prescribed by law.

The relevant facts are these. The appellant runs a sweetmeat
shop at Sadar Bazar, Moga. On January 3, 1978 .Dr. Paramjit
Singh, Medical Officer, R.D. Ramnagar, district Faridkot, PW ·2 F
along with Dr. Narinder Kumar, ~W ·3 visited the shop of the appel-
lant, disclosed his identity as a Food Inspector and cfemand.ed 75"0
grammes of kutcha khoya for analysis and purchased the same. The
Fo9_d Inspector divided the kutcha khoya so purchased into three
equal parts, put them into'three· polythene packs and added 18 drops G
. of formalin to each. The polythene packs were ·wrapped, labelled •
and sealed as required under s. 11 (I) (b). One part of the' sample
was sent by. the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh
and the remaining two parts to the Local (Health) Authority,
Faridkot .as required by cl. (a) of sub-s. (I) of s. 11 for purposes of
sub-s. (2) thereof and sub-s. (21\:) and (2E) of s. 13. The Public. H
Analyst, Chandigar)l by his report dated February 3, 1978 found the
sample to be adulterated with sesame oil (1(1 oil). besides bei~11insect
'

516 •SUPREME COURT REPORTS . 11984) I s.c.R.

infested. The fat content of the 'sample was reported to be 25%. On
A the basis of the report ·of the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector
lodged a complaint agairist the appellant before the Judical Magis-
trate, First·Class, Moga. The appellant entered appearance and duly
exercised his right under sub-s. (2) of s. 13. The learned Magistrate
sent one. of the two parts of the sample to the Director of the· Central
B Food Laboratory, Calcutta for purposes of analysis under sub s. (2B)
and the remaining .part to the Local (Health) Authoriiy as required
under .sub-s. (2C) of s. 13 of the Act. The Director by his letter
dated May 2, 1978. intimated that the sample received-by him was
decomposed and therefore unfit for analysis and added. that the
-
counter-part of the sample may be sent to him immediately .for
analysis and report. It appears that for a period of six months
appearently nothing .was done. On November 10, 1978 the .learned .,
. Magistrate forwarded the remaining part of the sample to the
Director of Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad for purposes of
analysis. The report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory,
Ghaziabad dated Decem]ler 7, 1978 revealed that the sample was
D
adulterated. ·The fat content was howeve.r stated to be 33.12%·with •
a note added that "the extracted fat of .20.37% did not comply with
the standards of milk fat for the State of Punjab". At the conclu-
sion of the arguments, an application was made by the prosecution
for clarification to be sought from the Director, Central Food Labo-.
E ratory, Ghaziabad since the "report was not clear, The learned •
Magistrate however rejected the application and proceeded to judg-
ment. He held that the certificate of the Director, Central· Food
Laboratory, Ghaziabod had the effect of superseding the report of
the Public Analyst, Chandigarh under sub-s. (3) of s. 13 and there-
fore it could not be looked into. He further relied upon a decision ,l
F of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Ram Prakash v. State of
Himachal Pradesh(') and held that the certificate of the Director,
Central ·Food Laboratory, Calcutta that the sample had become unfit
for analysis had become final and therefore there· was no occasion
for sending the remaining part of the sample to the Director, Central
G Food Laboratory; Ghazi~bad for analysis. . He also held that even
assuming that the sample "sent to the Director, Central Food Labo-
ratory, Calcutta had become 'damag~d' within the meaning of proviso
' to sub.s. (2C) of s. 13 and therefore he could proceed in the manner
provided by sub-s. (2B), the report of the Director, Central Food
H Laboratory, Ghaziabad showed the fat content to be 33.12% i.e. in

(!) [1979] Cr!. L.J. 7$0
CHARANJILAL v. PUNJAB (Sen, J.) 517

excess over the minimum standard of 20% for khoya .prescribed
under the rules ·and therefore the khoya could not be treated to be
adulterated. In this view, the learned Magistrate acquitted the
appellant of the charge under s. 7. read with s. 16 (i) (a) (i} of the
Act.

On appeal preferred by the State Government, the High Court
disagreed with the view taken by the Himachal Pradesh High Court
B
·in Ram Prakash's case, supra, and held that it.was not permisoible
·to put a narrow construction on the word 'damaged' used in proviso
to sub-s. (2C) of s. B. According to the High Court, a sample may
be 'lost or damaged' within the meaning of proviso to sub'-s. (2C)
of s. 13 while in transit due. to contamination or for various other c
reasons and therefore if another part of the sample was available,
· it could still be examined afresh. Further, it observed that the ·.
remaining part of the sample was sent to the Director, Central Food
Laboratory, Ghaziabad for analysis without any objection by the
appellant nor had any prejudice been caused to him. The High Cciurt
dealt with the evidence and relying upon the testimony of Dr. Param- D
jit Singh, PW 2 and Dr. Narinder Kumar, PW 3 held that the
appellant had sold an article of adulterated food and was ther~fore
guilty of an offence punishable under s. 7 read with s. 16 (i) (al (i) of
the Act and sentenced him as above. ·

- In this appeal, two questions are involved, namely: (!) Whether.
the part of the sample sent by the learned Magistrate to the Director,
Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta was 'daniaged' within· the
meaning of proviso to sub-s. (2C} of s. 13 of the Act to .enable him
to proceed in the manner provided in •sub·s. (2B) i.e. forward
E

the remaining part of the sample to the Director; Central ·Food
Laboratory, Ghaziabad; and (2) Whether, the kutcha khoya sold by
the appellant was adulterated within the meaning of s. 2 (ia) (I) of
'
the Act.

To appreciate the contentions raised, it is necessary to set out
the relevant provisions. The expression ·'adulterated' is defined in .G
s. 2 (ia) (!) of the Act which reads : .

"2, Definitions : In this Act unless the context other-
wise requires,•
H
(ia) "adulterated"-an article of food shall be deemed
to be adulterated•
518 SUPllEME COURT REPORTS · {I 984} l s.c.R.
,
(I) .if the quality or purity of the article falls below
A the prescribed standard or its con.stituents are
present in quantities not within tl)e prescribed
limits of variability, which renders. it injurious
to health."

B Sub-ss. (2B) and (2C) of s. 13 of the Act provide as follows :

"(2B) : On receipt of the part or parts of the sample
-from the Local (Health) Authority .under sub-section
(2A), ihe court shall first ascertain that the mark and
seal or fastening as provided jn clause (b) of sub-section
c (I) of Section 11 are intact and the ·signature or thumb-
impression, as the case may be, is not tampered with, and
despatch the part or, as the case may be, one of the parts
· of the sample under its own seal to the Direcfor of the
Central Food Laboratory ·who shall thereupnn send a
certificate to the court in the prescribed from within one
D month from 'the date of receipt of the part of the sample
specifying the .result of the analysis."

"(2C) : Where two parts of the sample have b.een
sent to the court and on>y one parf of the sample has
., been sent by the court to the Director of the Central
Food Laboratory under sub-section (2B), the court shall,
as soon as possible, return the remaining part to the Local
(Health) Authority and that Authority shall destroy that
part after the certificate .fr.om the Director of the Central
p Food Laboratory has been re~eived by the court :

Provided that where the part of the sample sent by
the 9ourt to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory
is lost or damaged, the court shall require the Local
(Health) Authority to forward the part· of the sample. if
G any, retained by it to the court and on receipt thereof,
the court shall proceed in the manner provided in · sub- ,
section (28)."

H The question is whether the kutcha khoya sold by the appellant·
was. uot of the nature, substance· or quality which it purported or
repre~enied to be~ · Sub·s. (I). ofs. 23 confers powers ori the Ce!!tral
Goverl!ment, after consultation with .the Central Committee for Food
'

CHARANJILAL v. PUNJAB (Sen, J.) 519

Standards constituted under S; · 4, to make ·rules to carry out · the
· purposes of the Act. In particular and. without prejudice to the
generality of the foregoing power, sub-s. (IA) enacts that such rules
may provide for all or any of the matters enumerated therein. One
of the subjects upon which rules can be made is definin: the stan-
dards of quality for,· and fixing the limits of variability permissible
in respect of, any article of food. In exercise of the powers conferred · B
by s. 23 of the Act, the Central Government framed the Prevention
of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 ('Rules' for short). R. 5 of the
Rules provides that the standards of quality of the various articles
of food specified in Appendix B to the Rules shall be as defined
therein. Standatds of quality and limits of variability fixed by the
Central Government in Appendix B are not subject to alteration or c
variation by the courts. Definitions of milk of various descriptions
for eaeh of which standards have been laid down are in A. I I.OJ.
There is a separate provision made with regard' to milk products.
A.I L02 defines milk products obtained from milk such as cream·
malai, curd, skimmed milk curd; chhanna, skimmed milk chhanna D
etc. and includes khoya. A.11.02.01 contains the following pres-
cription :

"Milk products specified in Appendix B shall not .
contain any substance not found in milk unless specified
in the standards.'! II

- · A.11.02.17 prescribes the standards of quality for khoya and 'it
reads :

"Khoya means the product obtained from cow or
buffalo or goat or sheep milk or a combination thereof
by rapid drying. The milk fat content shall not be less
. than 20 per cent of the finished product."

It appears that the attention of the High Court was not 'd~awn
to the finding reached by the learned Magistrate based on the report G
of the Director, Central Food Laboratory,· Ghaziabad. It revealed
the fat content of the sample to be 33.12% and R.M. value of
extracted fat to be 20 37% i.e. more than the· minimum prescribed
> standard of 20% under item A. 11.02.17 of Appendix B to the Rules. B
The High Court has not touched upon the finding recorded by the
learned Ma~istrate that the article of food was not adulterated and
that the report of the Director, Central- Food
' - . Laboratory, Ghaziabad
' .
• SllPR.BME COURT REPORTS '
(1984) 1 s.c.a.

eould not form the basis for conviction. True it is, under proviso
A to sub-s. (5) of s. 13 of the Act, the certificate of thi• Director,
Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad is final and conclusive evidence
of the facts stated therein, and it states that tlie sample was 'adulte·
rlited'. At the same time, the fat contenr in the report was shown
. to· be in. excess of the minimum fat content prescribed under item
A. 11.02.17 with"a note appended that 'the extracted fat content
did . not comply with the standards of milk' fat for the State of
Punjab'. There is no mat.erial on 'record to show that any separate
fat content for khoya has been prescribed under item A. 11.02.17 for
the State of Punjab. We gave time to learned counsel for the State
to enlighten us on the subject, but he has not been alJle to place ·on
c- tec!itd any notification issued by the Central Government in that
behalf: The contention is that unless the khoya was found to be
adulterated within the meaning of s. 2 (ia) (!) of the Act, the
appellant could not obviously be convicted for having committed
an offence punishable under s. 7 read with s.16 (i) (a) (i) of the Act.

There are certain aspects of the case which are rather distur·
bing. It is not clear as to how the fat content of the same article
of food the sample of ,which, according to the report of the Public
Analyst, Chandigarh .dated February 3, 1978 was 25%, went up to
33.12% as appears from the repor.t of the Director, Central Food
Laboratory, Ghaziabad dated December 7, 1978. Further, it is also
not clear that when the fat content of the sample was 33.12% and
the R.M. value of the extracted. fat was 20.37%, .still the Director
on analysis .found the sample to be adulterated. Was it due to the.
presence of any substance not found in lllilk like sesame oil (ti/ oil)
as.found by the Public. Analyst, Chandigarh or was it that there was
-
a higher fat content prescribed for khoya for the State of Punjab as
appears from the appended note ? These are some of the aspects
"which require investigation. There is no ·other alternative but to
remit the matter to the High Court for a decision afresh. The' High .
Court may cal! for a clarification from .the Director, Central Food
Laboratory, Ghaziabad, or take such other s~eps as it deems fit:

turning now to the main question as to the real .meaning of
the word "damaged" which occurs in the proviso to sub·s. (2C) of li..
s. 13 of the Act, it must be construed in furtherance of the intention
H of the Legi~lature. the problem of interpretatibn is a probltm of
meaning of words. and their effectiveness to communicate a particular
thought. In all ordinary cases primarily the language emp1_oyed Is
CHARANJILAL v. ,PUNJAB (Sen, J.) 521

the determining factor, bnt words used by the Legislature do not
always b!iar, a plain meaning. The word "damaged" must fake its .
colour from the context'in which it appears .. It will be seen that the
word "damaged" in the collocation of the words "lost or damaged"
. ap_pears both ·in sub-s. (2) of s. 11 and in. the proviso to sub-s. (2C) ·
of s. 13 and it is therefore necessary to ascertain the purpose and
·object of insertin.g these provisions, and the mischief sought to be B
avoided by the Legislature. It is necessary to keep in view the fact
that Act 34 of 1976 has changed the whole procedure of taking
samples for purposes of analysis. These changes have been brought
about by Parliament with a view· to prevent certain malpractices. . It
is clearly plain from the report of the Joint Select Committee on the
Bill to amend the Act that these provisions are intended and meant c
to check the Food Inspectors ·from indulging in corrupt practices.
The procedure prescribed under the Act prior to the amendment was
· that a Food Inspector was under an obligation to give one of the
parts of the sample to the person from whom the sample was taken,
send another part to, the Public · Analyst, and retain the third part
for production in case any legal proceedings were~ taken, or for
D
analysis by the Director. of the Central Food Laboratory, as the
case niay be. Experience in the past showed that after a Food.
Inspector had sent one part of the sample . for analysis, the remai-
ning part i.e. one given to the vendor, ·and the other kept with. the
Food Inspector, were usually tampered with, with· the result that E
prosecutions under s. 7 read with s. 16 (i) (a) (i) of the Act invariably
• failed because of the breach of the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 13
.of the Act which entitles the accused to have the remaining part of
the sample sent to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for
analysis.
F
It is pertinent to observ~ that along with the changes brought
about in s. 11 dealing with the· procedure to be followed by a Food
Inspector,.a news. 13 has been inserted by Act 34 of 1976. After
the amendment when a sample of article of food is taken, there is a
dutY cast upon a Food Inspector under s. Ii (I) (c) (i) to send one of
the three parts of the sample for analysis to the Public Analyst
under intimation to the Local (Health) Authority. Under s. Ii (3)
he must do so by the immediately succeeding working day.. He is
further .required under s. 11 (1) (c) (ii) to send the remaining two
parts to the Local (Health) Authority for the purpose of being H
utilized under sub-s. (2) of s. ll, or sub-ss. (2A) and (2E) of s. 13,.
also not later than by the succeeding working day under r. 17. (b), ·
522 SUPRllMB COUllT llEPOllTS · · \1984)" l S.C.ll.

Under sub-s. (2) of s. 11, if the sample sent to the Public Analyst
A it lost or damaged, the Locaf(Health) Authority is empowered, on a
requisition made by the Public Analyst or the Foo~ Inspector, to
despatch one of the parts of the sample sent to ~t under s. 11 (!) (c)
(ii) for analysii.
'
B
Under the scheme of the Act, the remaining two parts of the
sample are kept with the Local (Health) Authority in order that in
case the part of the sample sent to the Public Analyst under s. 11 .
(1) (c) (i) is lost or damagt;d, or one of the remaining two parts of
the sample sent by the Court to the Director of the Central Food
Laboratory under sub-s. (2B) of s. 13 ii lost or damaged, the
remaining part or parts are preserved for further analysis by the
Public Anaiyst, or the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, as
the case may be. II would be seen that the phrase 'lost or damag~d'
appears both in sub·s. (2) of s. 11 and in the proviso to sub·s. (2C)
D of s. 13, and these provisions have been imerted by Parliament with
a definite object.

The word "damaged" In the collocation of the words "lost or
E damaged" appearing in the proviso to ~ub·s. (2C) of s. 13 in relation
to the part of the sample sent by the court to the Director of the
Central Food Laboratory must, in the context, mean "damaged due
to any cause, including decomposition". The part of the sample sent
by the Court to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under
the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13 may be either damaged due to the
container not being properly sealed or fastened, or due to various )..
other causes including breakage of the container, or because decom-
position bas occurred, or it may be lost in transit. The word
"damaged" in tile collocation of the words "lost or damaged" occur· ;,.I
ring in sub-s. (2) of s. 11 and in the proviso to sub·s. (2C) of s. 13
must be construed in furtherance of the object and purpose of insert-
ing these provisions. The whole purpose of depositing two parts of
the sample with the Local (Health) Authority is that if one of the
parts of the sample is lost or damaged for any reason whatever, the -~
remaining part may still be available for analysis.
. .,.. .

There is a conflict of opinion between the High Courts and also
within the same fHigh Court as to the cons\ructio11 of the word.
i::HAiiAN~ILAL v. PUNJAB (Sen, J.) 523
"damaged''. used in the proviso to sub·s. (2C) of s. 13 of the· Act,
some of which we have been able to trace out. The Punjab & A
Haryana High Court has itself taken. two contrary views, one in the . •
instant case, and the other in Darshan Lal v. State of Punjab( 1). The
view .of the Himachal Pradesh lj,igh Court in Ram Prak ash's case,
supra, and that of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Darshan
Lal's case, supra, is that the meaning of the word "damaged" occur· B.'
ring in the proviso to sub·s. (2C) of s. f3 must be controlled by the
context and it means "damaged due to the container not being
properly sealed or fastened". The view to the contrary has been
expressed by the Delhi High Court in State v. Joginder Lal Kapoor(')
and by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the pre·sent case that
the word "damaged" used in the proviso must be given a wider c
meaning as to include "damaged due to any cause, inch1ding
decomposition". In Joginder Lal Kapoor's case, supra the Delhi
High Court observed that.· the loss or damage contemplated in
the proviso to sub·s .. (2C) of s. 13 of the Act must occur after the
sample is despatched fo( analysis to the Central Food Laboratory,
and added: ·

"A sample can get damaged for a number of reasons
including breakage, Leakage and decomposition. The
possibility of a sample getting decomposed because of
delay in transit cannot to ruled out. In my view the word
"damage" used in sub-s. (2C) has to be given a w.ider
meaning and it would iiiclude damage of any nature
including decomposition but the damage must occur af~r
the sample is despatched." F

In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, 3rd edn.,
}t: p. 710, para 9, it is stated: "You 'damage' a thing if you render it
imperfect or inoperative". Decomposition would render a sample G
useless and of no value for analysis. While the Delhi High Court
·is right.in holding in Joginder Lal Kapoor's case, supra, that the word
"damaged" used in sub-s. (2C) has to be given a wider meaning, it is
· not possible for us to subscribe to the view that the loss or damage
H
I. [1982] I FAC 290
2. [1980] I FAC 86
524 SliPRilME COURT REOORTs l19S4l 1 s.c.~.
must occur after the sample is despatched for analysis to the Central
A Food Laboratory. We are inclined to think that the word "damaged"
• is wide enough to mean "damaged due to any cause whatever, in- ·
eluding decomposition".. To"restrict the meaning of the phrase 'lost
or damaged' would be to defeat the object for which the new s. 13
was inserted by Parliament by Act 34 of 1976." Ii is not necessary
B that loss should take place only after the actual despatch of the part.
of the sample to the Central Food Laboratory has commenced. From ·
. the nature of.things, the Joss contemplated by. the proviso · to sub- .
s. (2C) of s. 13 must take place after the court has directed one part
of the sample ~o be despatched to the Central Food Laboratory,.but
the course of such despatch is not required to' be confined to the
c period of a~tual transit. Even if that part of the sample is lost after
the court has directed it to be sent to the Director of the Central
Food Laboratory and before the actual transit has commenced, that
part of the sample would be "lost" within the meaning of the proviso
to sub-s. {2C) of s. 13. So far· as the damage to that . part of the
sample is concerned, if damage in the sense of decompositio11 were·
to be interpreted to mean decomposition taking place during the
course of transit, it .would frustrate the very object of Parliament in
·enacting the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13. · Decomposition is riot
something which always takes place suddenly or immediately. It is
a process.which in some cases may be sfow and in some. cases quick.
E Decomposition carinot be noticed or ascertained by the Court when
it inspects the part of the sample under sub-s. (2B) of s. 13 to ascer-
tain ·whether the mark and seal or fastening are intact and the
signature or thumb-impression., as· the case may be, not tampered
with, before despatching that part to the C~ntral Foocl Laboratory.
Even with .the mark and seal intact, and the signature or thumb·im-
pression, as the case may be, not tampered with, the sample might have
already decomposed or decomposing niigbt have already commenced.
Whether a sample has decomposed or not can _only be ascertained
.when the sealed container is opened in the Central Food Laboratory ~
for the purpose of analysis. Thus, while from the nature of things
G loss or external damage to. the sample must take place after the Court
directs under sub-s. (2B) of s. 13 despatch of the part of the .sample,
damag~ in the sense of decorr;position of that .part of the sample sent •
to the Central Food Laboratory may take-place either before or after
the Courts directs its desp~tch to the Central Food Laboratory. In
H either event, that part of the sample would be "damaged"' within
the meaning of t!\at expression in the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13
ohheAct.
ciiARANiILAL ¥. PUNJAB (Sen, i.) 525
• With these observations, the appeal partly succeeds and is
allowed. The judgment and· sentence passed by the High Court A
are set aside and the appeal is remanded . to the High Court for .
a decisfon afr_esh with advertence to the ob_servations made" above.

·H.S.K. Appear'partly allowed.

•

.

•
•