LexANDHRA PRADESH GRAIN & SEED MERCHANTS' ASSOCIATION ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
!66 ANDHRA PRADESH GRAIN & SEED MERCHANTS' ASSOCIATION ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. I March 31, 1970 [J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.) Prevention of. Food Adulteration Act (37 of 1954), sso 7, 10 and 19-Constitutional validity of. The petitioners are traders in foodgrains, edible oils and other articles of food, In a petition under Art, 32 they challenged the validity of ss. 7, 10 and 19 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. They contended that : (l) ss. 7 and 19 of the Act are violative of Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) because, (a) s. 16(1) (a) of the Act read with s. 19(1) imposes an absolute liability on dealers; (b) the standards of quality and limits of variability of quality prescribed by the Act are unreasonable and that small dealers would not be in a position to ascer- \ain whether the goods purchased by them. or in their possession a're according to those standards as required by s. 7 of the Act; ( c) .Ven when an article is purchased not as an article of food, but for other use; the vendor would be deemed guilty if the article did not conform "to the prescribed standards; ( d) if a retail seller opens a container of branded article of food he loses even the limited protection provided by s. 19(2); and (e) that the penalties which may be imposed under s. 16(1 )(a) are unduly severe; and (2) the non-availability to the vendor of the plea of his ignorance and the conclusiveness of the certi_ficate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory under s. 13(5) of the Act, violate the ~uarantee under Art. 20 ( 3 l .. HELD : (a) The Act does not make mens rea an ingredient of the offence. Ordinarily, for the protection of the liberty of a Citizen, in the definition of offences, blame-worthy mental condition is made an ingre- dient: but in Acts enacted to deal with a grave soc1a1 evil or fdr ensuring public welfare especially in offences against health, it is often found neces- sary in the larger public interest to provide 1Ior imposition of liability with- out proof of a guilty mind. If from the '°heme of an Act, it appears that compliance with the regulatory provisions will be promoted by imposiµg such absolute liability and that it cannot othe'fwise be reasonably ensured, the court will be' justified in holding that the restriction on the right of the trader" is in the inkrest of the general public. [172 H-173 CJ Adulteration and misbranding of food is a rampant evil in our country. The channels of supply and the movement di goods from trader to trader, and fertile sources of adulteration and misbranding, make it extremely difficult in a large majority of cases to establish affirma- tively that stdrage or sale of adulterated or misbranded food-stuffs was with a guilty mind. Therefore, a statute calculated to control that evil is in the interest of the general public and merely because it makes a departure from the normal structnre of statutes enunciating offences and prescribing punishments, the restrictions ·on t'raders will not be deemed unreasonable. The deferu::es set out in s. 19(2) are open to the vendor and the act does not dispense with proof that the article of food is adulterated, misbranded dr that its sale is prohibited : it only enacts that a vendor selling adulterated and misbranded articles of food cannot merely olead that he was ignorant of the nature and quality of the goods. [171 G-H; 173 C.D] Ir A B c D F G B A B c D E F G H ANDHRA GRAIN MERCHANTS V. UNION 167 ( b) The schedule to the Act uses technical expressions in relation. to standards of quality and an ordinary. retail dealer may not be familiar with them. But the rules, made under s. 23 (I) ( b) prescribe clearly the standards of quality. The standards are arrived at after consultation. with the Committee for Food Standards which consists of experts in the field of food technology and food analysis and representatives of the Central and State Governments. Hence the standards cannot be challenged as arbitrary or unreasonable. [175 CJ (c) What is pcnalistd uy s. _ 16! 11 is the importation. manufacture tor sale or storage. sale. or distribution of any article of food. It is always open to a person selling an article capable of being used as an article of food as well as for other purposes to inform the purchaser by clear notice that the article sold or supplied was not intended to be used as an article of food an<l '"
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.