Holding

Rule 22‑A is only a corollary to Rule 22 and does not forbid opening sealed containers for sampling; dealer and manufacturer may be joined as co‑accused, and the High Court erred in quashing the prosecutions under s.482 CrPC.

Summary

The State of Punjab filed criminal proceedings under Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 against a vendor, a dealer and a manufacturer of vanaspati after a food inspector took a 1.5 kg sample by opening one sealed tin of 16.5 kg and found the product adulterated. The Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed the prosecutions, holding that Rule 22‑A of the 1955 Rules prohibited taking a sample from an opened sealed container and that the dealer and manufacturer could be proceeded against only after the vendor had successfully defended himself under Sections 19(2) and 20‑A of the Act. The Supreme Court reversed, interpreting Rule 22‑A as merely a corollary to Rule 22 and not barring the opening of a sealed container for sampling, and observing that Sections 19(2) and 20‑A do not preclude joint trial of vendor, dealer and manufacturer. The Court also held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to quash the proceedings at the interlocutory stage under Section 482 of the CrPC. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the High Court orders set aside and the matters remanded to the magistrates for trial.

Issues considered

Whether taking a sample after opening a sealed container violates Rule 22‑A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
Whether a dealer or manufacturer can be jointly tried with the vendor under Sections 19(2) and 20‑A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Whether the High Court could quash criminal proceedings at the interlocutory stage under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954s. 11(1)(b), s. 19(2), s. 20-A, s. 7(i)
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955s. 22, s. 22-A, s. 22-B

Subjects

Food adulterationSample takingPrevention of Food Adulteration ActRule 22-AJoint trialCriminal Procedure CodeSection 482Public health

Judgment

'114

STATE OF PUNJAB

v.

DEVJNDER KUMAR & ORS.

April 7, 1983.

(E.S. VEl'IKATARAM!AH AND AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.J

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954--Ss. 7(i), 11 (1) (b), Prevention
of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955-Rules 22 and 22-A--Sample taken after opening
sealed container having larger quantity than re;/uired·--lf valid.
c
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Ss. 19 (2) and 20-A-Whether
dealer and manufacturer can be jointly tried with vendor.

Criminal Procedure Code-S. 482-Scope of.

lnterpretation~Rule of.

On a complaiot by the Food Inspector, who had purchased 1.5 k.g. of
vanaspati as sample after opening one sealed tin of 16.5 k.g. out of ZO such
tins- kept by the vendor for sale, criminal proceedings were instituted against the
vendor, the dealer and the manufacturer of vanaspati for violation of s.7 (i) of
the Prevention of Food Adlllteration Act, 1954 on the ground that on analysis
E the vanaspati did not satisfy the prescribed standard. The facts of -all these
cas~s are more or less the same. When the process was issued, the dealer and .
the manufacturer filed petitions in the fligh Court contending: (1) as the
complainant had taken the sample after opening a sealed tin, he had violated
r.22-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, (2) under s. 20-A
•
of the Act the dealer or a manufact'urer could be proceeded against only after
the vendor had set up a successful defence as contemplated under s. 19(2) and
F therefore their prosecution along with the vendor was illegal.

The High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the proceedings on the
ground that where the food was in sealed containers having identical lable
declaration, the entire contents of one or mOre of such containers as may be
required to satisfy the qnantity prescribed in r. 22 should be taken as a part of
G the scimple and since the sealed container had been opened to draw the sample
the prosecution was not tenable.

Allowing the appeals,

HELD : Rule 22-A states that where foo'd is sold or stocked for sale or
H for distribution in sealed containers having identical lable declaration, the
contents of one or more of such containers as may be required to sathfy the
quantity prescribed in r. 22 shall be treated to be a part of the sample. Ru_Ie
72-A <;toes not ~tate that where a sealed container contains a quantity larger
PUNJAB V. DBVINDER KUMAR 715
.than what is required for purpo'.es of S. 11 read with r. 22 !he sea]ed container
as such should be taken as sample and that no sample can be taken after A
opening the sealed container. This rule is enacted apparently to get over the
difficulty that may arise in taking sample and in dividing it into three parts as
required by s. 11 (I) (b) Where such sealed container containing the food in
question contians a quantity less than the required quantity to be taken as
sample for purposes of s. 11 read with r. 22. The matter is put beyond doubt
by r. 22·B which, however, only reaffirrrs the legal rosition existing before that
rule came into force. Rule 22~A is oi1Iy a corollary to r. 22 which prescribes B
the quantity of sample tQ be sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The inevit~
able consequence of the acceptanCe of the argument of the accused which has
appealed to the High, Court i~ t'.iat where a manufacturer or distributor sells
food-stuffs in large sealed containers containing quantities much larger than
what is required to be taken as sample under the law and the contents of only
j
one suCh container <ire exposed, for sale by a vendor after opening the
container, a Food Inspector would not be able to take a sample at all for
c
proceeding under the Act against the manufacturer, distributor or even the
vendor. Any construction which would lead to such absurd result sbould be
avoided while construing the provisions of the Act. (718 F-G, 719 A,718 G-H,
719-G, 719 E, 718 F, 719 A-C]

State of Kera/a etc. etc. v. Alaserry Mohammad etc. etc., [1978] 2 SCR, D
820, referred to.

There seems to_ be no logically sound reason why, if a distributor or a
manufacturer can be subsequently imp leaded under s. 20-A of the Act, he
cannot be joined as a co-accus.ed initially in a joint trial if the allegations made
justify suc~1 a course. [722 C] E·
Bhagwan Dass Jagd1sh Chander v. Delhi Administration. [1975] Supp.
SCR 30, followed .
•
In the instant cas:s, the High Court committed a serious error in
quashing the criminal proceedings in different niagistrates' courts in exercise
of its extraordinary ·jurisdiction under s. 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. ,- F
These are not cases, where there is no legal evidence at all in support of the
prosecution. The prosecution has still to lead evidence. It is neither
expedient nor possible to arrive at a conclusion at this stage on the guilt or
innocence of the accused on the material before the court. High_ Court should
not have therefore interfered at this interlocutory stage. [722 D-F]

State of Punjab v. Sat Pal, Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 1983 decided on G
March 25, 1983, referred to.

While construing food laws such as the Prevention of Fool\ Adulteration
Act courts should keep in "'iew that the need for prevention of future injury
is as important as punishing a wrong doer after the injury is actually inflicted.
Merely because a person who has actually suffered in his health after consum- H
ing. adulterated food would not be before court in such ca~es, courts should
riot be too ~ager to quash on slender grounds the prosecUtions for offenc~
~lle$ed IQ have b~en committeg under the Act. (718 D-E)
7l6 SUPREMB COURT REPORTS [1983) 2 S.C.R.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDCTION : Criminal Appeal Nos.
286,292 of 1981.

Appeals by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 24th April, 1980 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Cri-
minal Misc. Nos. 196, 198, 1565, 1567, 1569,'1571and1573-M/80.

D.D.Sharma for the appellant

K.C. Dua forthe Respondents (Not present)

The Judgment of Court was delivered by

VENKATARAMIAH. J. The above Criminal Appeals by Special
leave are filed against a common judgment delivered on April 24,
1980 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Misc.
Nos. 196, 198, 1565, 1567, 1569, 1571 and 1573-M of 1980.
D
By its judgment under appeal the High Court has quashed
certain criminal proecedings institued in different Magistrates' courts
againts different parties for violation of section 7 (i) of the Prevention
of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
Since the facts in all these cases are more or less the same, we
E shall briefly state the facts in one of them i.e. Criminal Misc.
No. 196-M of 1980 on the file of High Court filed by Daljit Vig. •
Works Manager, Kishan Chand & Co. Oil Industry Ltd., Manu-
factuturers-0f Vanaspati at Ludhiana in which he had prayed for •
quashing the criminal proceedings which had been initiated by a com-
plaint filed by the Government Food lnspector,.District Faridkot. In
that case the complainant alleged that when he visited the premises
of Darshan Lal (Accused No. I) on July 30, 1979 he found that
Darshan Lal had in his possessipn for purposes of sale about twenty
sealed tins each containing 16.5 K. G. of crown vanaspati and he
demanded a sample of crown vanaspati by serving a notice on
Darahan Lal in the form prescribed under the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').
Thereafter he purchased 1.5 K.G. of crown vanaspati after opening
a sealed tin for analysis by paying him Rs. 15/-. The sample
·was divided into three equal parts and put into three dry and cleaned
:ff ·bottles which were labelled and duly closed aud sealed. One of the 'y
bottles containing the sample was sent to the Public Anlyst, Punjab in
a sealed container, through a special messenger alongwith a memo•
randum (Form No, VII/ containin~ the specimen of the seal and the
~UNJAll v. OBViNDBR. KUMAR (Venkataramiah. j,) • 7tf

remaining two bottles were deposited with the Local Health Author-
ity, Faridkot in accordance with the Rules. He also seized the entire A
stock of vanaspati under section 10 (4) of the Act. After the receipt
of the Report of the Pub lie Analyst dated August 24, 1979 he filed
the complaint annexing the Reoprt as an enclosure to it. The said
Report stated that on analysis he (the Public Analyst) found that the
sample sent to hiiµ did not contain sesame oil at all whereas vanapati B
was required to contain not Jess than 5% by weight of sesame oil.
The three accused named in the complaint were Darshan Lal, the
vendor, M/s. Hehl Raj Pawan Kumar, the dealer.s and Kishan
Chand & Co., Oil Industry Ltd., the manufacturers of the vanaspati
.J contained in the aforementioned sealed tms. The complainant alleged
that as the vanaspati in question did not satisfy the prescribed C
standard the accused were liable to be punished under section
16 (I) (a) (i) of the Act for having contravened the provisions of
section 7 (i) of the Act. The names of witnesses including the name
of the person in the presence of whom the sample had been taken
were furnished in the complaint. When process was issued on the
basis of the above complaint Daljit Vig, the Works Manager of the
manufacturer of the vanaspati in siuestion filed Criminal Misc. No.
196-M of 1980 on the file of the High Court. Criminal Misc. No.
198-M of 1980 was filed by Pawan Kumar of M/s. Hem Raj Pawap
Kumar. In these two petitions they pleaded thatthe criminal procee-
dings initiated against them were liable to be quashed on various E
grounds. They contended, inter a/ia, that because the complainant
had taken the sample of vanaspati after opening a sealed tin, he had
violated Rule 22-A of the Rules and that because under section 20-A
of the Act, the dealer or a manufacturer could be proceeded against
only after the vendor had set up a successful defence as contemplated
under section 19 (2) of the Act, their prosecution alongwith the F
vandor was illegal. In the connected cases which were disposed of
by the common judgment under appeal;the grounds were more or
less the same. The High Court allowed all the petitions quashing all
the criminal proceedings filed against the petitioners before it on the
ground that where the food sold or stocked for sale or for distribu- G
tion was in sealed containers having identical label declaration, the
entire contents of one or more of such containers as may be· required
to satisfy the quantity prescribed in Rule 22 should be taken as a part
of the sample in a sealed form and since the sealed container had
been opened in each of these cases to draw the sample the
' prosecution was not tenable. In the instant case it may by recalled
that each of the sealed containers contained 16.5 K .G. of vanaspati
and after opening one such sealed container the complainant had
118 • SUPREME COUlT REPORTS [l 983l 2 s.c.R.

taken 1.5 K.G. of vanaspati ~s sample. The method adopted by
A the complainant was found by the High Court to be contrary to the
relevant Rules. These appeals by Special Leave are filed against the
judgment and order of the High Court. It may be stated here that
the High Court following its decision in these cases quashed the
proceedings against Darshan Lal, the vendor of the vanaspati in
B question, in Criminal Misc. No. 2197·M of 1980 by its order dated
June 17, 1980 against which a separate petition is filed before this
Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2570 of 1980 which is
also being disposed of today by a separate order.

Adulteration and misbranding of food stuffs are rampant evils
.c in our country. The Act is brought into force to check these social
evils in the larger public interest for ensuring public welfare. In certain
cases the Act provides for imposition of penalty without proof of a
guilty mind. This shows the degree of concern exhibited by Parlia·
men! in so far as public health is concerned. While construing such
D food laws Courts should keep in view that the need for prevention
of future injury is as important as punishing a wrongdoer after
the injury is actually inflicted. Merely because a person who
has actually suffered in his health after consuming adulterated food
would not be before court in such cases, courts should not be too
eager to quash on slender grounds the prosecutions for offences,
E alleged to have been committeq under the Act.

Section 11 of the Act prescribes the procedure to be followed
by the Food Inspectors in taking samples of food for analysis. The
quantity of sample to be sent to the Public Analyst for analysis is
F prescribed by ·Rule 22 of the Rules. In the case of vanaspati 500
grams (approximately) should be sent to the Public Analyst under that
Rule. Rule 22-A states that where food is sold or stocked for sale or
for distribution in sealed containers having identical Jab le declaration,
the contents of one or more of such containers as may be required
G to s~tisfy the quantity prescribed in Rule 22 shall be treated to be a
part of the sample. This Rule is enacted apparently to get over the
difficulty that may arise in taking sample and in dividing it into three
parts as required by section 11 (I} (b) of the.Act where each sealed
container containing the food in question contains a quantity
ff less than the required quantity to be taken as sample for the y
purposes of section II read with Rule 22. Rule 22-A of the Rules
was promulgated for the purpose of overcoming an objection to the
effect tlrat the contents of two or more different sealed containers

'
-')~
~UNIAB v DEVINDEk KUMAR (Venkataramiah, J.) · 719

could not form the parts of the same sample. Rule 22-A of the Rules
does not state that where a sealed container contains a quantity A
larger than what is required for purposes of section 11 read with
rule 22 the sealed · container as such should be taken as sample and
that no sample can be taken after opening the sealed container. It
may be stated here that the inevitable consequence of the acceptance
of this argument of the accused which has appealed to the High B
Court is that where a manufacturer or distributor sells food stuffs
in large sealed contaiuers containing quantities much larger than
' ,. what is required to be taken as sample under the law and the con-
':r tents of only one such contain~r are exposed for sale by a vendor
after opening the container, a Food Inspector would not be able to
take a sample at all for proceeding under the Act against the manu· C
facturer, distributor or even the vendor. We feel that any construc·
tion which would lead to such absurd result should be avoided while
construing the provisions of the Act: The precautions prescribed
in section I! of the Act which have to be observed while taking
samples are indeed adequate to prevent effectively any false sample
being sent to the Public Analyst. If there is any prejudice caused to D
accused by any negligence on the part of the authorities concerned in
taking or sending the true sample to the Public Analyst, the prose-
cution may have to fail. But there is, however, no legal reqnirement
which compels the Food Inspector to send the sealed container as
such to the Public Analyst even though it contains a quantity much E
larger than what is required to be taken as sample under Rule 22.
Rule 22-A is only a corollary to Rule 22. Rule 22-B sets at rest many
,I doubts which were being raised prior to its promulgation. It says :

"22-B. Quantity of sample sent to be considered as F
sufficent.-Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 22
quantity of sample sent for analysis shall be considered as
suflicent unless the public analyst or the Director reports
to the contrary."

G
Even prior to the coming into force of Rule 22-B, the legal
position was the same as what was attempted to be achieved by
Rule 22-B of the Rules. In State of Kera/a etc. etc v. A/aserry
Mohammed etc. etc. (1) this Court held Rule 22 which prescribed the
quantity of food that should be sent tothe Public Analyst was only H
directory and that a prosecution could not fail merely on the

(I) [1978] 2 S.C.R. 820.

____ ...,_. __
SUPRijMB COURT REPORTS !198J] 2 s.c.R.

&round that the quantity sent to the Public Analyst was less than
A what was prescribed,· provided the quantity which was actually sent
was sufficient for purposes of analysis. Untwalia, J. speaking on y +
behal£ of the five learned Judges who heard that case observed at
pag_e 828 thus :

"It would thus be seen that the whole object of
section II and Rule 22 is to find out by a correct analyis
subject to further verification and tests by the Director
of the Central Laboratory or otherwise, as to whether
the sample of food is adulterated or not. If the qua11tity
sent to the Public Analyst, even though it is less than
c that prescribed, is sufficient and enables the Public Analyst
to make correct analysis, then merely because the
quantity sent was not in strict compliance with the Rule
will not result in the nullification of the report and obli·
terate its evidentiary value. If the quantity sent is less,
it is for the Public Analyst to see whether it is sufficent
for his analysis or not. If he finds it insufficient, there is
an end of the matter. If, however, he finds it sufficient
but due to one reason or the other, either because of
further tests or otherwise, it is shown that the report of
the Public Analyst based upon the short quantity sent
to him is not trustworthy or beyond doubt, the case may
Jil fail. In other words, if the otl}t:ct is frustrated by the
sending. of the short quantity by the Food Inspector to
the Public Analyst, it is obvious, that the case may end in
acquittal. But if the object is not frustrated · and is
squarely and justifiably achieved without any shadow of
doubt, then it will endanger public health to acquit
offenders on technical grounds which have no substance.
To quote the words of Sir George Rankin, C.J. from the
decision of the Calcutta High Court in Chandra Nath
Bagchi v. Nabadwip Chandra Dutt and others A. I. R.
1931 Calcutta 476 at page 478, it wuold "be merely piling
6 unreason upon technicality ......... " In our considered
judgment the Rule is directory and not . mandatory. But
we must hasten to reiterate what we have said above that,
even so, Food Inspectors should take case to see that
they comply with the Rule as far as possible ................ ..

We may, in passing, note that the Rules have now
been amended and Rule 22B has been added in 1977 ...
PUNJAB v. DEViNDBR KUMAR (Venkataramiah, i.) 721
In our opinion, the new Rule has been added for the
purpose of clarifying the law and not by way of amending A
it. The law, as we have enunciated it, was so even with-
out Rule 22B and it is stated here to place it beyond any
debate or doubt."
It may be noted that in none of these cases has the Public Anal-
yst expressed the opinion that the quantity of sample sent to him was B
inadequate for the purpose of analysing it and to make a report as
required by the Act. It is unfortunate that the High Court in deciding
the cases before it failed to appreciate and follow the approach
adopted by this Court in A/aserry Mohammed's case (supra). The
decision of the High Court on the above point cannot, therefore, be C
sustained.
The other ground namely that the dealer, manufacturer or
disiributor cannot be prosecuted alongwith the vendor by impleading
all of them initially as the accused in a prosecution under the Act
is unsustainable in view of the decision of this Court in Bhagwan D
Dass :!agdish Chander v. Delhi Administration (1). In that case after
considering the effect of section 19 (2), section 20 and section 20-A
of the Act, Court observed at pages 36-37 thus:
"We are' also unable to accept as correct a line of
reasoning found in V. N. Chokra v. The State A. I. R.
1966 Punjab 421 ana Food Inspector, Palghat Munici-
E
pality v. Setharam Rice & Oil Mills (1974) F. A. C. p·
534 and P. B. Kurup v. Food Inspector, Malappuram
Panchayat (1969) Kerala Law Times, P. 845 that in every
case under the Act, there has to be initially a prosecution
of a jlarticular seller only, but those who may have passed F
on or sold the adulterated article of food the vendor, who
is being prosecuted, could only be brought in subsequently
after a warranty set up under section 19 (2) has been
pleaded and shown to be substantiated. Support was
sought for such a view by referring to 'the special pro-
visions of Section 20A and Section 19 (2) and Section G
20 of the Act. A reason for section 20A seems to be
that the prosecution of a person impleaded as an accused
under Section 20A in the course of a trial does not
I
require a separate sanction. Section 20A itself lays down
that, where the Court trying the offence is itself satisfied H

(!) [19751 Supp, S.C.R. 30.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS {i983J 2 S.C.R.

that a "manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also con-
A cerned with an offence", for which an accused i.s being
tried, the necessary sanction to prosecute will be deemed
to have been given. Another reason seems to be that such
a power enables speedy trial of the really guilty parties.
We are in agreement with the view of the Delhi High
B Court that these special provisions do not take away or
derogate from the effect of the ordinary provisions of the
law which enable separate as well as joint trials of
accused persons in accordance with the provisions of the
old. Sections 233 to 239 of Criminal Procedure Code.
On the other hand, there. seems no logically sound reason
c why, if a distributor or a manufacturer con be subsequently
impleaded under Section 20A of the Act, he cannot be
joined as a co-accused initially in a joint trial if the a/lega-
tions made justify such a course." (emphasis added)

Before concluding we should observe that the High Court
D committed a serious error in these cases in quashing the cl'iminal
proceedings in differernt ·magistrates' courts at a premature
stage in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdication under section
482 Criminal Proceuure Code. These arc not cases where it
can be said that there is no legal evidence at all in support of the
E prosecution. The prosecution has still to lead its evidence. It is
neither expedient nor possible to arrive at a conclusion at this stage
on the guilt or fonocence of the accused on the material before the
Court. While there is no doubt that the onus of proving the case '
is on the prosecution, it is equally clear that the prosecution should
have sufficient opportunity to adduce all available eviden.ce.
F
We are of the view that on the facts and in the circumstances
of these criminal proceedings, the High Court should not have inter-
fered at this interlocutory stage. These were not cases of that
exceptional character _where continunace of Prosecution would have
G resulted either in waste of public time and money or in grave
prejudice to the accused concerned. On the other hand this undue
interference 'by the High Court has been responsible for these
prosecutions in respect of grave economic offences remaining pending
for a long time. In a similar case in State of Punjab v. Sat Pal
H decided by us on March 25, 1983 we have set aside the order of the y
High Court and remanded the case for disposal to the trial court .

. (1) Criminal Appecal No. 199 of 1983 decided on March 25, 1983.
PUN;AB v. DEVINDER KUMAR ( r!enkataramiah, J.) 71~

Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and order of the High Court
in each of these appeals and remand the cases to the respective magist· A
!rates' courts for disposal in accordance with law. All the other
contentions are left open.

The appeals are accordingly allowed.
B
H.S.K. Appeals allowed.