Holding

The Director, Central Food Laboratory’s certificate is final and conclusive evidence, establishing that the gingelly oil was adulterated.

Issues considered

Whether the certificate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory supersedes the Public Analyst’s report and constitutes conclusive evidence of adulteration.
Whether the prosecution must prove the FFA content at the time of sampling, or the court may infer adulteration from later analysis.
Interpretation of Sec 2(i)(L) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in relation to prescribed standards.
Whether scientific evidence is required to demonstrate a rapid increase in FFA over a short period.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 136
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954s. 16(1)(a)(i), s. 2(i)(L), s. 7(i)
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955s. Appendix B, clause A.17.11

Subjects

Food adulterationFree fatty acidGingelly oilEvidenceScientific analysisDirector Central Food LaboratoryPublic AnalystCriminal prosecutionStatutory interpretation

Judgment

774

STA:TE OF TAMIL NADU

v.
B
S. SHANUMUGHAM CHETTIAR & ANR.
September 22, 1980
[R. S. SARKARIA AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.]
Preventfon .r,f Food Adulterllltion Act, 1954; Section 16(l)(a) read with
c Section (i) and 2.(i) (L)-gingelly oil-increase in the Free Fatty Acid content-
Oil whether becomes adulterated.
Under section 2(i)(L) (before it was amended in 1976) of the Prevention
of Food Adulteration Act,· 1954, an article of food is deemed to be adulternted
"if the quality of purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its
constituents are present in quantities which are in excess of the prescribed limits
D of variability".
On November 1, 1969, sample of gingelly oil was purchased by the Muni-
cipal Food Inspector from the shop of the respondents. Aftet completing
the necessary formalities, the Food Inspector arranged to send one part of
the sample to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst analysed
the sample on November 11, 1969 and reported that it contained 5.1 % of
E Free Fatty Acid as against the permissible limit of 3 % . On receipt of the
report, the respondents were ,Prosecuted for offences under Section 16(1)(a)(i)
read with Section 7(i) and 2(i)(L) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
At the trial, in pursuance of the respondents request, another sample was got
analysed on Febrnary 6, 1970 by the Director, Central Food Laboratory.
According to his report, the gingelly oil contained 6.2 % of the Free Fatty
Acid and was therefore, adulterated.
F The District :Magistrate observing that the Free Fatty Acid had increased
from 5.1 % to 6.2% between November 11, 1969 and February 6, 1970 and
it was therefore, likely that the Free Fatty Acid content in the oil might
have similarly increased between November 1, 1969 when the sample was tal:en
and November 11, 1969 when the sample was analysed by the Public Analyst,
held that it was not possible to say that the prosecution had established that
on the date when the sample was taken the Free Fatty Acid content of the
G oil exceed 3 % and acquitted the respondents. The order of acquittal was
confirmed by the High Court. In the appeal to this Court, it was,
HELD : I (i) The judgments of the District Magistrate and the High Court
are set aside. The second respondent is convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i)
and sentenced to pay a fine. [780C]
(ii) There was no justification for the conclusion of the District Magistrate
H
and the High Court that the Free Fatty Acid content of the oil on the
date when the sample was taken might have been less than 3 % and therefore
not adulterated. [780B]
TAMIL NADU v. s. SHANUMUGHAM (Chinnappa Reddy, !.) 775 .

In the instant case, the Public Analyst report had been superseded by the A
~ertificateof the Director, Central Food Laboratory, and the latter certificate
had become conclusive evidence of the facts mentioned in it. The sample,
must therefore be held, to be adulterated. There was nothing in the evidence,
nor had anything been shown from any scientific work which would suggest
that the Free Fatty Acid content would so rapidly increase in the space of
.about three months. If it was less than. 3% on November l, 1969 when the
·sample was taken it could not have increased to 6.2 % by February 6, 1970 B
when the sample was analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. [777H, 7780]
2. Gingelly (Ti! or Sesame) oil is a semi-drying 'oil. It is only after Pro-
longed exposure to air and light that there may be some discernible chemical
-changs in gingelly (Ti! or sesame) oil. [779G]
New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 13 pages 526-527 referred to.
c
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 115
of 1975.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
10-1-1972 of the Madras High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 64
No. 657/70. D

A. V. Rangam for the Appellant.

A. T. M. Sampath for the Respondents.

The Jud?ment of the Court was delivered by
E
CttrNNAPPA REDDY, J.-On November l, · 1969, a sample of
gingelly oil was purchased by the Food Inspector, Madurai Munici-
pality from the shop of the first respondent, who is now reported to
be dead and against whom, t'.his appeal, has, therefore, abated. At that
time re5pondent No. 2 was attending to the business. After complet-
F
ing the necessary flormalities the Food Inspector arranged to send one
part of the samplt". to the Public Analyst at Madras for analysis. The
sample was analysed by the Public Analyst on November 11, 1969
and it was reported by him •that it contained 5.1 % of Free Fatty Acid
as· ag4inst the limit of 3 .0·% permissible under clause A.17 .11 of
Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. In G
his report he also mentioned that the sample was properly sealed, it
was air-and-moisture-tight and packed in thick paper so as to be proof
against light, and, rtlle Free Fat'.ty Acid content of the oil would, there-
fore, remain unchanged for several months. · On receipt of the Public
Analyst's report a complaint was filed against the two respondents for
an offence under sec. 16(1) (a) and Sec. 7(i) read with sec. 2(i) H
(L) and Clause A.17.11 of Appendix 'B' to the Prevention of Food
AduYteration Rules. Both the respondents .denied the offence. The
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.Rp

A second respondent stated that he signed on the various documents
produced by the prosecution as he was asked to do so by the Inspec-
tor. He did not read the contents of those documents. The brother
of the second respondent was examined as a defence witness and he
stated that he was in the shop when the Food Inspector came there·
and purchased the sample and lihat at the time of the sale the Food
B Inspector was told that .the gingelly oil was not meant to be used as.
an article of food but was meant for "oil bath".
At the trial a request was made by the respondents that another
part of the sample whkh had been produced by the Food Inspector
in the Coul1t might be sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory,
c Calcutta, for analysis. It was sent as desired. The sample was analysed
by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta on .February 6,
1970. According to his report the gingelly oil contained 6.2% of
Free Fatty Acid and was, therefore, adulterated.
The learned District Magistrate, Madurai acquitted both the·
D respondents observing that the Free Fatty Acid had increased from
5.1 % to 6.2% between November 11, 1969 and February 6, 197(}
and it was, therefore, likely that the Free Faitty Acid content in the
oil might have similarly increased between November 1, 1969 when
the sample was taken and November 11, 1969, when the sample was
analysed by the Public Analyst, Madras. On that ground, the District
E Magistrate held that it was not possible to say ~at the prc1Secution bad
established that on the date when the sample was t.aken the Free Fatty
Acid content of the oil exceeded 3 % . The State preferred an appeal
to the Madras High Court against the order 'oil acquittal. The High

F
Court confirmed the order of acquittal for the same reason as that
given by the Di~trict Magistrate. The State has filed this appeal after
obtaining special leave of this Court under Art 136 of the Constitution.
.J
Under Sec. 2(i) (L) (before it was amended in 1976) of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, an article of food is deem·
ed to be adulterated "if the quality of purity of the article falls below
the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities
G which are in excess of the prescribed limits of variability".

Paragraph A.17.11 of Appendix 'B' to the Rules made under the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act prescribes the standard in the
ease of Til oil (Gingelly or seasame oil) /and to the extent relevant
it reads as follows :
H ["A.17.11.-Til oil (Gingelly or sesame oil) means the
oil expres&Xl from clean and sound seeds ofl Til (Sesamum indi-
"."' .~ cum), black, brown, white, or mixed. 11! shall be clear, free
TAMIL NADU v. s. SHANUMUGHAM (Chinnappa Reddy,!.) 777

from rancidity, suspended or other foreign matter, separated A
water, added colouring or flavouring substances, or mineral oil.
It shall conform to the following standards :
(a) Butyro-rafractomerer reading at 40'C 58.0to61
(b) Saponification value 18°8 to 193
(c) Iodine value 105 to 115
(ct) Unsaponifiable matter Not more than 1. 5 per cent.
(e) Free fatty acid as Oleic acid. Not more than 3. 0 per cent.
(f) Bellier test (Turbidity temperature- Not more than 22'C).] .]"
Acetic acid method).

Now, a sample of food purchased by a Food Inspec.tor has to be c
divided by him into 3 parts and each part has to be marked, sealed
and fastened separately. Before the Act was amended in 1976, one
part was to be delivered to the person from whom the sample was
taken.. another part was to be sent for analysis t;o ithe Public Analyst
and the third part was to be retained with the Food Inspector to be
produced by him in case legal proceedings were taken or it became D
necessary ,to send it for analysis to the Director of the Central Food
Laboratory. The Public Analyst was required to deliver a report
of the result of his analysis and this report was ordinarily the foun-
dation of the prosecution by the Food Inspector. After the insti-
tution of the prosecution, the accused was given the right to request
the Court to send the third part of the sample reta.ined by the Food E
Inspector to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for a certificate.
The Director, Central Food Laboratory was required to send to the
Court a certificate specifying the result of his analysis and the certi-

L_ ficate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, .thereupon, super-
seded the Public Analyst's report. · The ·Public Analyst's report, if
F
not superseded by the Certificate of the Director. Central Food Labo-
ratory and the Certificate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory
might be used as evidence of the. facts stated therein in any proceed-
ing under the Act with this difference that the certificaite of the
Director, Central Food Laboratory was to be final and conclusive
evidence of the facts stated therein. G.

In the present case the certificate of th'e Director showed that the
sample of gingelly oil contained 6.2% of Free Fatty Acid whereas the
permissible limit was 3% only. We are not concerned with the
Public Analyst's report since that has been superseded by the
certificate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, and the latter
·certificate has been made conclusive evidence of the facts mentioned
in it. The sample, it must therefore be found, was adulterated.
s--M5 s. c. India I so
7'78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.

A The samp~e, as we mentioned earlier, was taken on November 1,
1969, the analysis by the Public Analyst was on November 11, 1969
and the analysis by the Director, Central Food Laboratory was on
February 6, 1970. The learned District Magistrate and the High
Court thought that although the Free Fatty Acid content in that part
B of the sample which was sent to the Director, Central Food Labora-
tory was 6.2 % on the date when the Director analysed the oil it
could not be said to have been established that on the date when
the sample was taken by the Food Inspector the Free Fatty Acid
content exceeded 3%. According to them it could well be that the /

c Free Fatty Acid content increased due to natural causes. We are
unable to agree with the lower Courts. There is nothing in the
evidence, nor has anything been shown to us from any scientific
work which would suggest that the Free Fatty Acid content would
so rapidly increase in the space of about three months that what
D was less than 3% on November 1, 1969, when the sample was taken
increased to 6.2% by February 6, 1970, when the sample was
analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. On the other hand in
the New Encyclopaedia Britannica Volume 13 (pages 526-527) it
is said :
E
"Fats can be heated to between 200° and 250°C without
undergoing significant changes provided contact with air or
oxygen is avoided ........ On exposure to air, oils and fats
gradually undergo certain changes. The dryin_g oils absorb
oxygen (dry) and polymerize readily; thin layers form a skin _,-
F
or protective film. The semidrying oils absorb oxygen more
slowly and are less useful as paint oils. Still, sufficient oxygen
is absorbed in time to produce distinct thickening and some
film formation. Oxidation of the drying and semidrying oils is
accelerated by spreading the oil over a large surface. On
G
greasy cloths, for example, oxygen absorption may proceed so
rapidly that spontaneous combustion ensues. The nondrying 1-
oils, of which olive oil is typical, do not oxidize readily on
exposure to air, although changes do take place gradually, in-.
eluding slow hydrolysis (splitting to fatty acids and glycerol)
R
and subsequent oxidation. This slow oxidation causes a
disagreeable smell and taste described by the te~ rancidity.
TAMIL NADU v. s. SHANUMUGHAM (Chinnappa Reddy, !.) 779

The chemical reactions involved in oil oxidation have been A
studied widely, when oils and fats are exposed to air, little
\
change takes place for a period of time that varies from oil to oil
,depending upon the amount and type of unsatura~ion and the
·content of natural antioxidants. During !his so-called induction
period, there is virtually no change in either odour or chemistry B
of the oil because of the protective effect of natural antioxidants,
especially tocopherol. Gradually, the effectiveness of the anti-
.oxidant is overcome and there is an accelerating rate of oxida-
·tion of unsaturated acids, called autoxidation. Chemically, the
'first identifiable oxidation products are hydroperoxides. These c
break down into a large variety of low-molecular-weight aldehy-
des, esters, alcohols, ketones, acids, and hydrocarbons, some
of which possess the pungent, disagreeable odours characteristic
.of rancid fats. In soyabean: oil exposed to air to the point of inci-
pient rancidity, more than· 100 different oxidation products have D
been identified. Natural oils such as coconut oil, with very low
levels of unsaturation, are very stable to flavour deterioration,
bl!lt the more highly unsaturated oils such as soyabean oil or
·safflower oil lose their flavour more quickly. Sesame oil is
unique in its flavour stability because of the presence of several E
:natural antioxidants (sesamin, sesamolin, sesamol). Synthetic
;antioxidants such as propyl gallate, butylated hydroxyanisole
'(BHA), and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) have been used to
retard the onset of rancidity and increase the storage life of edible
fats". F

iGingelly (Til or seasame) oil we may mention is a semi drying oil.
From the extract from the Encyclopaedia Britannica it is only after
prolonged exposure to air and light that there !Ilay be some discernible
chemical changes in gingelly (til or seasame) oil. In fact it is men- G
tioned in the Encyclopaedia Britannica that seasame oil is unique in
its flavour stability because of the presence of several natural anti-
·oxidants. There is nothing to indicate that the samples were not pack-
·ed as required by the rules. The report of the Public Analyst men-
tions "The sample has been received properly sealed, to be air and H
'
moisture tight and packed in thick paper to be proof against access
;to light. Onder these conditions the Free Fatty Acid content of oils
. 'Z:SO SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [1981] 1 S.C.R.

A remains UJ?-Changed for several months". The cer.tificate of the Direc-
tor, Central Food Laboratory mentions "The seals were intact". We
are, therefore, clearly of opinion that there was no justification for
the conclusion of the District Magistrate and the High Court that the
Free Fatty Acid content of the oil on the date when the sample was
B taken might have been less than 3% and therefore, not adl!llterated.
We set aside the judgments of the District Magistrate and the High
Court and convict the second respondent under Sec. 16 ( 1 )(a)( i) read
with sec. 7(i) and 2(i) (L) of the Prevention of Food Adultera-
tion Act and sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 100 in default te>
C undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks. We are
imposing a nominal sentence having regard to the circumstance that
we are interferring with a concurrent order of acquittal more than ten
years after the commission of the offence.

D N.K.A.