Mohammed Yamin v. Uttar Pradesh & Another

Madlew, J, This, appeal, by special leave, is against a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad by which it restored the ord~r of the Magistrate convicting the appellant of an offence under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulte­ ration Act (Act 37 of 1954), hereinafter called the 'Acf1 and sentencing hiJ11 to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment a~d pay a fine of Rs. l,0001- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months, after reversing the order passed by the Sessions Jud,ge in appeal acquitting him of the offence. On June 13, 1963, Head Constable Baboo Khan was on patrol duty. He happened to come to the Chakki of one Abdul Razaaq. There he found a heap of Shakkar and some labourers E mixing Shelkhari in it with spades. He went to the police station to inform 'the Station Officer about it but the Station Officer was not there. He then met the Sanitary Inspector and informed him about what he saw at the Chakki. 111e Sanitary Inspector ac­ companied by the Food Inspector proceeded 'to the Chak.ki and there they found" the labourers mixing Shelkhari with Shakkar. The stock of Shakkar belonged to the appellant. The Food Ins­ pector purchased 1 t seers of Shakkar from the appellant by way of sample after paying its price. He divided ·the sample into three parts, gave one to the appellant and retained the other two with him. One of the samples retained was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The Analyst found, in his report dated July 11, 1963, that the Shakkar contained 2.4% moisture, 72. 7 % total sugar, 64. 7 % sucrose, 17 % extraneous matter inso- lub«e in water. According to him the exicraneous matter insoluble in water, total ash and ash insoluble in Hydrochloric acid ex· ceeded by 15.0%, 10.l % all.d 13.3% respectively as against the maximum prescribed standards of 2.0%, 6.0% and 0.5% respectively. On the basis of a complaint filed by the Food Inspector of the Municipal Board, Saharanpur, the Magistrate who tried the ap· SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1973] l S.C.R. pellant for an offence under section 16 read with section 7 of. the Act cam~ to the conclusion that the appellant had stored the Shakkar for sale, that it was adulterated and that he was guilty of the offence and convicted and sentenc~d him as aforesaid. The appellant filed an appeal against the order before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Jud11;e acquitted him of the offence for the reason that the prosecution had not proved that the Shakkar stol'~d by the appellant was for sale. He said that the appellant was mixing eX!traneous matter with the Shakkar for converting it into Rab and as such it cannot be said that the Shakkar was stored for sale by the appellant. He also said that no standard of quality was prescribed by the rules framed under the Act for Shakkar, that as an article of food, Shakkar was neither 'gur' nor 'Jaggery' and that the sale of Shakkar to the Food Inspector by the appellant was under duress and was not a sale in the eye of the Jaw. The Municipal Board filed an appeal against the order to the High Court. T'1e High Court held that Shakkar is same as 'jaggery', that standard of quality has been prescriJ:\ed by the rules framed under the Act for jaggery, that the Shakkar in question was adulterated, that the sample purchased by the Food inspector for the purDose of analysis amounted to sale within the meaning of section f(xiii) of the Act, that Food Inspector had power under the Act to get the sample even if the Shakkar was stored for being manufactured into Rab and not for saleand restoreC the order of the Magistrate convicting and sentencing the appellant as aforesaid. The first contention on behalf of thte appellant was that Shakkar is not 'jaggery', aml since no standard of quality has been prescribed for Shakkar under 'the rules fromed under the Act, the Shakkar was not adulterated. We find it difficult to accept th~ contention that Shakkar is not iaggery. Para A.07 .05 of Appendix B of the Rules reads : "Gur or jaggery means the product obtained by boiling or processing juice pressed out of sugar cane or G extracted from palmyra palm, da'1e palm or coconut palm. It shall be free from substances deleterious to health and shall conform to the following analyticai standards on drv weight basis : (i) tofal sugars not less than 90 per cent and sucrose not less than 70 per cent. H (ii) extren·~ous matter insoluble in water not more than :::> per cent. MOHD. YAMIN v. STATE (Mathew, J.) 353 (iii) total ash not more than 6 per cent. (iv) ash insoluble in hydrochloric acid (HCI) not more than 0.5 per cent. Gur or jaggery other than that of the liquid or semi­ liquid variety shall not contain more than 10 per cent moisture." It is not disputed that Shakkar is a product obtained by boiling or processinf{ juice pressed from out of sugarcane, and therefore, it is clear that Shakkar is jaggery. But counsel for the appellant submitted that Appendix B of the Rules does not define jaggery but only gives the description of what '.iaggery' is and it cannot, therefore, be said that jaggery would comprehend all the varieties of products obtained by boiling or processing juice pressed out of sugarcane. In other words, counsel said that Appendix B to the Rules only describes what jaggery or gur is and that it does not define what jaggery or gur is. We are unable to accept the con­ tention for the reason that jaggery or gur is defined as any pro­ duct obtained by boiling or processing juice pressed out of sugar­ cane and so any product S() obtained would be comprehend witf1- in the definition. Quite apart from this, we find in Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary (Revised Edition) the meaning of 'jaggery' as : "A coarse dark sugar made from palm sap or otherwise. (Hindi-Shakkar; Sanskrit-Sarkara) ." It is, therefore, clear that Shakkar is 'jaggery'; and ithe finding of the High Court, on the basis of the report of the Analyst, that the Shakkar has not conformed to the standard of quality pres­ cribed for jaggery and, therefore, !hf~ food was adulterated, was correct and has to be maintained. The secopd contention on behalf of the appellant was that he had kept the Shakkar for manufa~turing Rab out of it. The contention, in other words, is that he' had not kept 1he Shakkar for sale but kept it for manufacturing Rab out of it and, there­ fore, the conviction under section 16 read with section 7 of the Act was bad. We do not think that there is any substance in this contention either. Section 7 of the Act, in so far as H is mate­ rial, provides : "No P'"rson shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store. sell or distribute-- 354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1973) 1 S.C.R. {i) any adulterated food;" Section 16, which imposes the punishment, in so far as it is relevant, says : "16 (l ) If any person~ (a) whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf imports into India or manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distributes any article of food- ( i) which is adulterated or misbranded or the sale of which is prohibited by the Food (Health) authority in 'the interest of public health;" The finding of th·~ High Court is that the Shakkar was kept by the appellant for the purpose of sale and not for the purpose of manufacturing Rab out of rt and that the attempt of th.i appel­ lant was to sell the Shakkar as an article of food after mixing Shelkhari with it. We see no reason to think that the finding was wrbng. But assuming that 'the finding was wrong and that the appellant kept the Shakkar was for sale but for manufacturi ·. ; Rab out of it, what follows ? If Shakkar is an article of food. it does not matter wh·~ther •the appellant kept it fo.· sale, or for manufacturing Rab out of it, provided the appelia.1t has sold i.t. And a sale to the Food Inspector is a sale for the purpose of sec­ tion 16 of •the Ac!. In The Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation v. Charukauil Gopalan and another( 1), this Cow t held that, if any articles of food are sold by any person, whet .. er he be a dealer in them or not, and if the food is adulterated, he is liable 10 b~ convicted under section 16 read with section 7 of the Act. The respondents before this Court in that case were the manaJ'_er and owner of a tea stall. The case again9t them was that they sold 600 grams of sugar to the appellant, •tho~ Food lnDector, for analysis and that the sugar was adulterated. The respondents pleaded that the sugar was not sold 'as such' in the tea stall and was only used for preparing tea which alone was sold. The plea was ac­ cepted by the District Magistrate and the respondents were ac­ quitted. The acqui'tlal was confirmed by the High Court. In appeal to this Court by the Food Inspector, om of the arguments for the respondents, was that 'they were not dealers in sugar and the sugar was not kept for sale and so they cannot be convicied under section 16 read with setcion 7 of the Act. The Court held, inter-alia, 'that sale to a Food Inspector is a sale for the purpose of section 16 of the Act, •that the article of food ;old to the F'ood Inspector n·~cd not have been taken from a larger quantity kent for sale, and tha't the person by whom the article of food was so1d to the Food Inspector need not be a dealer as such in the article. ----=~---- -~-- (!) [1971] 2 s.c.c. 322. - MOHD. YAMIN v. STATE (Mathew, I.) 351 . In that case it was assumed by this Court that the sugar was adulterated. Whether it was aQllltera1ed or not as a matter . of fact, this Court proceeded on the assumption that il was adul· · terated. If that be so, we see no reason to doubt the correctness .. of the ratio of the case. We think the High Court was ri1dit in its conclusion. We dismiss the appeal. G.C. ~ft al dismissed. ""pe