Holding

The prosecution failed to establish that the jal mirchi powder was adulterated under s.2(1)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, so the appeal was dismissed.

Summary

The Delhi Administration prosecuted Puranmal for alleged adulteration of jal mirchi powder under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 after a public analyst reported nine live meal worms in a sample taken from his shop. The trial court held that the prosecution had not proved the powder was adulterated and acquitted the respondent; the High Court affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the presence of worms (or insects) falls within the definition of "insect‑infested" under s.2(1)(f) and whether the prosecution must also prove the article is unfit for human consumption. The Court held that "worm" and "insect" are distinct terms and, even if the worms were treated as insects, the analyst’s certificate did not state that the powder was insect‑infested or otherwise unfit for consumption. Consequently, the prosecution failed to satisfy the statutory requirement of adulteration, and the appeal was dismissed, upholding the acquittal.

Issues considered

The meaning of 'insect‑infested' and 'otherwise unfit for human consumption' in s.2(1)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Whether the presence of worms in a food sample constitutes 'insect‑infested' for purposes of the Act
Whether the prosecution must prove that the food article is unfit for human consumption in addition to showing infestation
The sufficiency of a public analyst's report as evidence of adulteration

Legislation cited

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954s. 16, s. 2(1)(f), s. 7
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955s. r.48-B

Subjects

food adulterationPrevention of Food Adulteration Actworm vs insectadulterated articlepublic analystcriminal prosecutionstatutory interpretation

Judgment

A
STA TE (DELHI ADMINIS'tRAtJON)

v.

• PURANMAL

March 26, I 985

(A. VARADAl\A.IAN AND l'lANGANATH MISRA, JJ.]
c .,
Prtvt•lion of Food Adulteration Act_, 1954-S.2( J) (/)-Living worms
found in the s•mplt-Distinction between, a worm and an 'ins-ect'-Pub/ic
Analyst's report silent-Whether the food mmple was WOTln-Infesttd or insect
-Infested or adulterated or unifit for human consumption-Sample-If could
be termed "adulterated."

D
Words and Phrases-"Or is otherwise unfit for human consumption"
appearifllf i• s. 2(1) (!)-Meaning of.

Section 2(1) (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Provides that an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if the article
E consists wholly or ia part of any filthy, putrid, disgusting, rotten, decomposed
or diseased animal· or vegetable substance or is insect-infested Qr is otherwise
unfit for human consumption.

The respondent was prosecuted for an offence under section 7 read with
section 16 of the Act. The prosecution case was that a ·sample of lat mirchi
p powder wai taken from the aroccry shop of the respondent. On an analysis
by the Public Analyst it was found that the sample contained nine livine meal
·~.
worms. Tber11 was no other evidence in support of the case of the prosecution
.·.that the tat m.1;:: chi powder w~ aduiterated. The learned Magistrate found
that tho prosecution bad failed to prove that the Jal mirchi powder was adulte·
rated and acquitted the respondent. The High Court dismissed the Crimillal
Revision Petitioa filed by the appellant State in limine.

Dismissin& the appeal by the State,

HELD.: (1) The words 'worm', 'infest' and 'insect' are defined in
Webster's New World Dictionary (1962 Edition). 'Worm• means "any of many
IODI slender soft-bodied crccpina animals, some SCKfllCntcd, that live by burro-
win& underaround or as parasites, as the earth-worm, tapeworm, 'In1est
• I ,. , '
ff
means "to overrun or inhabit in large numbers, usually so as to be harmful or
blii.Hl Ai>Mt. v. t>liRAN MAt.
bothetsorile, swarm in or about. 'Insect' means "My of a 1arge groUp of small
1

·'A
invertebrate animals characterized, in the adult state, by division of the body
into head, thorax, and abdomen, three pairs of membranous winas: beetles,
• bees, :flies, wasps, mosquitoes, etc. are insects.'' The same meanin& is ai,ven of
the above three words in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. Therefore, it is not
possible ,to bold that a worm and an insect are the same. [467C-E]

M/• Narbklallf' Roller Flour Mills and ancther v. The Corporatioo of c)l
Ca/cul/a, 1973 (Prevention of Food Adultetation Cases) 257, referred to: ·
. I o

(2) Even if the nine worms found by the P~blic Analyst in the sample
are cOnsidered to be insects, the certificate of the Public Analyst· does- not
support the case of the prosecution that the lat mirchi powder was adulterated,
for the Public Analyst has not expressed his opinion that the Jal mirchi powder
was either worm-infested or insect-infested or that on account of the pfesence c
~

of the meal worms the sample was unfit for ~buman ..consumption. TherefOte,
the prosecution has not established by any satisfactory evidence the requirement
of Section 2(1) (f) of the Act. Consequently no interference is called for with
the Judgment of th.. High Court. [473G-H)
·-
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo Mal, [1976] 2 SCR ·1., .D
Municipal Corporation a/Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia, [1980) 1 SCR 910, held
inapplicable.

Per Varadarajan J.

No opinion is expressed as to which of the two views expressed· in E
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo Mal, [1976] 2 $.C.R. l, .and
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia, [1980) 1 S.C.R,910 is
correct, since this Bench also is of equal strength. Moreover, it is not neces-
sary to do so having regard to the facts of the present case. [473F]

Per Ranganath Misra J. (concurring in the conclUsion)

Tlie true meaning of section 2(1) (f) has been brouaht out in. µunicipa/
Corporal/on of Delhi v. Tek Chand 8hatia, [1980) 1 .SCR 910 and the concl ..ion
that. 'it would not be necessary in such a case to prove further thai ··the article
of food was unfit for human consumption' is a correct staiement of th• law .
• In the instant case, the prosecution evidence is inadequate to warrant
interference. [474B-C]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appe~I No. 539
of 1984

From the judament and order date4 17.11.82 of the High Court
H
of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 268/82. · · ·
466 sliPREME eo\JRt RliroRts h9s5l 3s.c.lt
A' ·D.K Sen, G.D~ Gupta and· R.N; Poddar for the Appellant.
. '

'/J.B. Vohra for the Respondent.
•
The following )udgments were delivered

. VARADARAJAN, J. This appeal by special leave is by the Delhi
B Administration and directed against the judgment of a learned Single
Judge of the Delhi ltigh Court dismissing Criminal Revision No. 268
of 1982 in //mine. That criminal· revision was filed against the
acquittal of the respondent by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,
Delhi in Case No. l_ 1 of 19~2. in which the respondent was tried
for an offence under s. 7 read with s. 16 of the Prevention of Food
c Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter ·referred to as 'the Act').

The Food Inspector, P.W. 4 took a: sample of Jal mirchi pow-
der from the grocery shop of the respondent. Oh analysis by the
Public Analyst it was found in Ex. PW l/C that the sample contained
D nine living meal worms. There was no other evidence in support
of the case of the prosecution that the Jal mirchi powder was adul·
terated. It was contended before the learned Magistrate that the
evidence by way of the Public Analyst's report does not satisfy the
requirement of the definition of 'adulterated ·article' -of food con-
tained in s. 2 (I) (f) of the Act. The learned Magistrate accepted
E this contention and found that the prosecution. has failed to prove
that· the lal mrichi ·powder was adulterated and he accordingly
acquitte~ the respondent.

- · The Calcutta High Court. in M/s Narkeklange Roi/er Flour
Mills and another v. The Corporation of Ca_lcutta(l) has observed :
F
" ...... Clause (f) of Section 2 defines the word 'adulterated'
a~d an article of food is said to b_e adulterated ff it is insect·
infest~d. ·By physical examination the Public Ana_lyst, ·
found blackish worms and the sample there is at best worm
infested. Is the word 'worm' synonymous with 'insect' ? Did •
G the legislature intend to condemn wheat products due to
presence of seaso~a~ worms ? } he w?rd 'insect' is_ defined
in the.Oxford Dictionary as small mvertebrate segmented
animal having head, thorax, abdomen, and three pairs of
thoracic legs, usually with one or two pairs of thoracic

H
---------------- --·----
(I) 1973 (Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases) 257.
·v bliui! ADM!. v. pui{AN MAL (Vardara}a,n, f.) {7'
6
wings. "The word "worm" in the same .dictionary is A
defined as "kinds of invertebrate limbless or apparently
limbless creeping animal, such as are segmented in rings or
are parasite in t[le intestines or tissues." There is, th.erefore,
a good deal of difference between worms and insects and a /
sample of food becomes adulterated only when' it is insect-
B,,
infested. In the present sample, however, ·worms were
found to be present and that in our view, does not satisfy
the requirements of the definition "adulterated" under·
..
Section 2 of the Act."

According to the Webster's New World. Dictionary (1962 c
edition), 'worm' means "any of many long, slender, soft-bodied
. creeping animals, some segmented, that live by burrowing . under- .
ground or as parasites, as the ·earth-worm, tapeworm''. According
to Webster's New World Dictionary 'illfest' means "to overrun or
inhabit in large numbers, usually so as to be harmful or bother-some
swarm in or about." According to that dictionary an 'insect' means D
any "of a large group of small invertebrate animals characterized,
in the adult state, by division of the body into head, ·thorax, and
abdomen, three pairs of membranous wings : beetless; bees, flies,
• wasps~ mosquitoes1 · etc. are insects."

· According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 'worm'
means "a slender, creeping, naked, limbless animal usually brown E
or reddish with a soft body divided· into a series of segments; an
earthworm." According to that dictionary an 'inseci' means "a
small invertebrate animal, usually having a body divided Into seg-.
ments, and several pairs of legs, and often winged."
~ . . .
~ Therefore it is not possible to hold that a worm and an· insect F
are the same.
Even if worms and insects are the same the appellant is not
out of difficulty in this case. As already stated the Public A~alyst
.. has found ·in the sample only nine living meal worms and he bas
neither ~~~~~cl \h~t it js insect-infested nor that it is ~nfit for h.uman ·G
consl\mPtion o~.account of the presence of the meal worms ncii- that
it is 'otherwise
~> I ,
unfit for
. ' •· ' 'I ·
human consumption.

According to Webster's Illustrated Contemporary Dictionary
(Encyclopedic Edition), 'infest' means "to overrun or spread in large ff
numbers so as to be unpleasant or unsafe".
' t .•
468 ,[i9ssl 3s.c.it.
A In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo Mal, .(1) the
Public Analyst had reported :
. u.
" Date of Analysis: 10-1-1969, Insect-infested pieces
of Kajus : 21.9% and I am o( the opinion that the same is
adulterated due to insect infested pieces of Kajus to'the
extent of 21.9%". "
B
• Sarkaria, J. speaking for himself and Gupta, 1: has observed· in· that
case :

" In view of the construction that the expression
c 'insect-infested', includes. infestation even by dead insects,
the further point to be considered is, whether mere insect- ·
infestation, without more, would be sufficient to hold the
'article to be 'adulterated' within the meaning· of sub-clause
(f) of clause (I) of s. 2 of the Act ....... .'.The point sought·
to be made out is that in this case, the prosecution, the .
defence and the High Court all felt that the report of the
Public Analyst was vague, inadequate and deficient, an~
in the absence of clear proof of the sample being unfit
for human consumption, it could ·not constitute a valid >

basis for holding the article to be adulterated within the
meaning of sec. 2(1)(f).
E
As against the above, Mr. F.S. Nariman, the learned
Counsel for the appellant Corporation submits that in the
case of food articles for which no minimum standard· or
purity is prescribed, the moment it is proved that a· propor-
tion of percentage of the article not being a proportion or
F
percentage as would be covered by the rule, de minimis non
curat lex - is putrid, filthy, disgusting, decomposed or
insect-infested, it would be deemed to be unfit for human
consumption and therefore adulterated within the contem-
plation of s. 2(1 )(f). In any case, proceeds the argument,
it is implicit in the report of the Public Analyst that the
G,
article in question was found unfit for human consumption.
This implication according to the learned Counsel flows
from the Analyst's conclusion that the article was "adul-
terated''. Counsel has criticised the view taken by the
H Bench in Dhanraj's case that if for an article of food, no
---------------
(I) [1976] 2 S.C.R I.
· 'DELHI AbMN. v. i>URAN MAL (Vardarajan, Ji 46~

standard of quality or purity has been prescribed ·Or no
limits have been prescribed for the validity or its constitu-
ents, then sub-clause OJ of clause (fl of sec. 2 will not apply
and that the Public Analyst is not competent to. say·as
" to what extent of insect-infestation would make the article
"adulterated".

The relevant part of Section 2 reads as under :
,
"(!) "adulterated" - an article of food J shall be .deemed
to be adulterated-

(a) to (e) c
(f) ifthe article consists wholly or in part of ariy filthy,
putrid, disgusting, rotten, decomposed or diseased
animal or vegetable substance or ·is 'insect-infested or
is otherwise unfit for human consumption".
D
The phrase "or is otherwise unfit for human consump-
tion" can be read conjunctively as well as 'disjunCtively.
If it is read conjunctively, that is, in association with what · ·
precedes it, sub-clause (f) with slight consequent rearrange-
ment and parenthesis would read like this : "If the article '·
is unfit for human consumption on account of (a) its consis- ,E
ting wholly or in part of any filthy' putrid, aisgusting
rotten; decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable Sub-
stance or being insect-infested, (b) or on account of any
other cause". In this view of the sub-clause; proof of
unfitness of the article for human consumption is a must
F
• . for bringing the case within its purview. -'

If the phrase is to be read disjunctively the mere proof
of-whole or any part ,of the article being "filihy, putrid,
disgusting,.rotten ......... or insect· infested" would. be con-
clnsive to bring the case 'within the mischief of this sub-
,G
clause, and it would not be necessary in such ~ case to prove
further that the article was unfit for human consumption.

We would prefer the first construction a·s it comports
best with reason, commonsense, realities, the tenor of this
- provision and the main purpose and scheme of the Act. The
H
adjectives "filthy", "putrid'', "disgusting'~, '~decoillposf:dh~
47o t!98Sj j S.0.R.
A "rotten" ......... "insect-infested" refer to the quality of the
article and furnish the indicia for presuming the article to
he unfit for human consumption. But the presumption
may not he conclusive in all cases, irrespective of the charac·
ter of the article, and the nature and extent of the vice
affiicting it" ...... -"': -
B
In Dhanraj's case (I.L.R. 1970 Delhi 681) the High
Court construed this sub-clause (f) thus :
"The word 'otherwise' in sub-clause (f) of cl, (I)' of
sec. 2 does suggest that all the adjectives used earlier
:c refer to the quality of the article being unfit for human -J
consumption. To fall under that sub-clause an article
of food must be unfit for human consumption because
it consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, dis-
gusting, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or
vegetable substance or because it is insect-infested or
on account of any other cause".

On the basis of that decision it is stated as follows in the Pre·
vention of Food Adulteration Act, published by the Easter~ Book
Company, seventh eddition, with reference to s. 2 (1) (f) of that Act
thus :
E
" The phrase "or otherwise unfit for human consump-
tion" should be read conjunctively and not disjunctively,
that is, in association with what precedes it. This sub-clause
would read like this :

F If the article is unfit for human consumption on account
of- •
(a) its consisting wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid,
disgusting, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or
vegetable substance or being insect-infested,
G (b) or on account of any other cause.

In this view of the sub-clause proof of the unfitness of the
article for human consumption is a must for bringing the case >4'
within its purview. Municipal Corporation, Delhi v. Kacheroo .....,.
Ma/( 1)
H -------------
(!) (19761 2 S.C.R. I
)
DELHI ADM! .. v. PURAN MAL (Vardarajan, J.) 4?1
All the adjectives used in thisZsub-clause are~fpresumptive A
'and not an absolute test of the quality of the article being
unfit for human consumption. To be more precise, in the
case of an article in 'respect of which the Rules do not pres-
cribe any minimum standard of purity or any minimum
proportion of insect infestation that "would exclude in from
the definition of "adulterated article" it wilt be a mixed B
question of law and fact whether the insect infestation ·is of
such a nature, degree and extent as renders the article
unfit for human consumption. The opinion of the public
analyst who examines and analyses the sample would con·
stitute legal evidence. As an expert in the science he is
')..· competent to opine and testify about this fact. Municipal
c
Corporation, Delhi v. Kacheroo Mal [(1976) 2 SCR !]".

An equally strong Bench of this Court has taken a different
view in regard to s. 2(I)(f) of the Act in Municipal Corpora1 ion of
Delhlv. Tek Chand Bhatia(l), where A.P. Sen, J. speaking for himself
and Murtaza Fazal Ali, J. has ·observed :

" In Dhanraj's case (supra) the High Court construed
sub-i::J; (f) thus : '

"The word 'otherwise' in sub-clause (f) of cl.. (l) of F.
i(!C. i does suggest that all the adjectives used earlier
fefer to ~he quality of the article being unfit for human
. . cpnsmilptipn. To fall under that sub-clause an article
. ' !lf food must be unfit for human consumption because
it i:pns.ists wholly or· in part of any filthy, ·putrid,
. !lisgusting, rotten, de~omposed or diseased animal er
., vegetable substance or because It ia inscct·infciteil or on
· . ~\lCQunt of any ot!wr ca11s~,"

We are of the opinion that the High Court was clearly
'' wrong in its inter-pretation of s. 2(I)(f). On the plain
language of the definitio.n section, it is quite apparent that
a'
the words 'or is otherwise unfit for human consumption' are
disjunctive of the rest of the wortb-preceding them. It relates
to a distinct and separate.'class alto~e\~ef· It seem~ t1> \l§
.r
(I) [l980j
Ii
. - , 1 S.C.R,
.. - .. 9!0:
-.~

.,
'472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19851 3 S.C.R.

cA , that the last clause 'or is otherwise unfit for human consump-
tion' is residuary provision which would apply to a case
, not covered by. or falling squarely within the clauses prece-
. , ding it. If the phrase is to be read disjunctively the mere
proof of the article of food being 'filthy, putrid, rotten,
. , decortiposed .... :.. .,or insect-infested' would be per se suffi-
B cient to bring ·the case within the purview of the wo.rd
'adulterated' as defined in sub-cl. {f) and it would not be
necessary in such a case to prove further that the article of
food was unfit for human consumption.

It is, however, pointed out that the construction placed
by the High Court in Dhanraj's case upon s. 2(l)(f) of the
.f--.
Act has been received with approval by this Court in J
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo Mal [(1976)
2 S.C.R. I] where it is observed that 'the construction placed
by the High Court in Dhanraj' s case is the correct exposi-
tion of the law embodied ins. 2(1)(f)'. It is added for the
.D '' . sake .of elucidation that the adjectives which precede the
phrase 'or is otherwise unfit for human consumption' indi-
cate presumptive but not absolute criteria as to the quality
· of the .article of food. If we may say so with respect, we
have reservations about the correctness of this decision, but
it is not ne~essary to refer the case to a larger Bench~

In Kacheroo Mal's case it is observed:
"The phrase "or is .otherwise unfit for human consumption"
· - can be read conjunctively as, well as disjunctively. If it is
read conjunctively, that is, in association with what precedes
.F
~--
it, sub-clause (f) with slight consequent rearrangement and
· parenthesis would read like this ; "If the article is unfit
for human consumption, on account of (a) its consisting '
wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, disgusting, rotten,
'
. decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or
,_."being insect-infested, (b) or on account of any other cause".
· In this view of the sub-clause,. proo,f of 'unfitness of the
' .'
[ III

· artlde for human consumption' is a must for bringing the
I
!

case within its purview. ' '
.!
~

H
,,, If the phrase is to be read disjunctively, the m·ore proof
of the whole or any part of the article being "filthy, putrid, I -',.
! disgusting, rotten ...... , .. or insect-infested" would be conclu-,

J
I • DELHI ADM!, v, PURAN MAL (Varadarajan, J.) 473

1sive. ·to bring·the case within the mischief of this sub-clause, ,A
and it would not be necessary in such a case to prove
further that the article was unfit for human consumption.

We would prefer the first construction as· it comports
· ·best with reason, commonsense, realities, the tenor of. this
·provision and the main purpose and scheme of the Act. The B
adje~tives "filthy", "putrid", "disgusting~', "decomposed",
"rotten" ...... "insect-infested" refer to the quality of the
article arid furnish the indicia for presuming the article to
be unfit for human consumption. But the presumption
may• not be conclusive in all cases, irrespective of the
character of the article, and the nature nnd extent of the c
vice afflicting it. This is particularly so, where an article
is found to' be "insect-infested." ·

With utmost respect, we are not able to share this view
and would hold that the observations made in the judgment
D
showld be confined to the particular facts of that case.
; ' .· " ·The decision in Kacheroo Mal's case (supra) was largely
' and
based on the circumstances that the standard of quality
purity was not prescribed in respect of cashew nuts. Now
that r.,48-B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules; E
1955 has been framed, the decision in Kacheroo Mal's case
(Supra) is rendered inapplicable."

We also constitute a Bench of equal strength. Therefore, I
refrain from expressing any opinion as to which of the two aforesaid
, views is correct. Nor is it necessary for me to do so having regard F
?- to the facts of this case, ·
'
Even if the nine worms found by the Public Analyst in the
sample are considered to be insects, the certificate of the Public
Analyst does not support the case of the prosecutio~ th.at the Jal
.,.
"·
mirchi powder was adulterated, for the Public Analyst has not G
expressed his opinion that the !al mirchi powder was either worm-
infested or insect-infested or that on account of the presence of the
meal worms the sample was unfit for human consumption. There-
fore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not established
by any satisfactory evidence the requirment of s. 2(I}(f) of the Act.
H
Consequently, no interference is called for with the judgment of the.
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ti 9851 3 s.c.R.
A High Court which, as stated above, has d,ismissed the criminal revi-
sion in limine. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

In my opjnion, the true meaning of Section 2{ia) (f) has been
brought out in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v: Tek Chand Bhatia
(supra) and the conclusion that 'it would not be necessary in such
a case to prove further that the article of food was unfii for human
B consumption' is a correct statement of the law.

I agree with 'my learned brother that the evidence led by the
prosecution is inadequate to warrant interference with the judgment
of acquittal passed by the trying Magistrate and upheld by the High"
Court. · ,
c ~
I, therefore, agree that the appeal has to be dismissed.

ML.A Appea / dismissed.

' ,..,

...

' .