BAL KISHAN THAPER versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 551 · Decided: 09-03-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
; 
• 
• 
BAL KISHAN TIIAPER 
v. 
l'v!UNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI 
March 9, 1979 
551 
[S. l\1URTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. D. KAUSHAL, JJ.] 
Prevelllion of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 ·of 
1954)-S. 2(ix)(a) 
and (g) Scope of-Outer label 
described the: 
contents 
as "as slveet as sac-
charin"-TV!icther a case of misbranding. 
The appellant was a manufacturer of a preparation called Para Excellent 
and Para Asli. 
The outer 1abel of the package Jes~ribed the contents as "as 
A 
B 
sweet as sacc11arin". 
Under the directions for use it was mentioned on the 
C 
lahel that the preparation was para saccharin. 
The appellant was prosecuted under s. 2(ix) (a) and (g) of the Prevention 
of Fon.-1 l\(1ulteration Act for misbranding the !JOOd:' and for 
selling it 
as 
saccharin. 
While the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant to imprison-
ment anll a fine on the ground that though a case 
of misbranding under 
-;. 2(ix) (a.} and (g) had not been made out, it was 2. case of misbranding con-
templated by s. 2(ix) (k), the High Court, in revision, enhanced the sentence 
and fine under ss_ 7 ::ind 16 read \1.'ith s. 2(ix){a) and {g) of the Act. 
On behn-lf of the prosecution it was contended in the appellant's appeal to 
this Court thtlt the use of the word saccharin gave the impression that the 
prepnration v.:as saccharin or something akin to it and it was, therefore, a 
case of mi'lbranding punishable under the Act. 
Allowing the appeal. 
D 
E 
HELD : 1. There is nothing on the facts of the case to show that the 
appe11ant in any way tried to give an impression to the Purchasers that either 
saccharin or ~ome preparation of the type of saccharin was being so1d so as 
to amount to misbranding as contemplated by s. 2(iv) (a) and (g) of the Act. 
F 
Nor was there an attempt to sell the preparation as saccharin or some kind of 
saccharin. When the Jab el described that the preparation was 
as 
sweet as 
saccharin it merely laid emphasis on the sweetness of the preparation when 
compared. to the S'\J.'eetness of the saccharin. Similarly when the label described 
-the preparation was not as bitter as saccharin it was intended to convey that 
it was neither something like saccharin nor saccharin itself in any form or of 
any type. [553 C-D] 
G 
2. Nor again was there any evidence of intention on the part of the appel-
lant to sell a preparation which resembles saccharin in any 
respect. The 
words "as sweet as saccarin" were merely meant to convey one of the quali-
tie!: of the preparation itself and not the quality of saccharin. That by itself 
would not attract the provisions of s. 2(ix)(a) of the Act. [554 BJ 
3. The use of the word para saccharin appears to be a mistake. In the Hindi 
portion of the directions contained in the label the words "para Saccharin" 
"Were not used. 
Secondly the word ''para saccharin" would not indicate that 
H 
A 
B 
552 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979] 3 S.C.R. 
the preparation sold was saccharin in any form or of any kind. It was jut 
a way of describing the contents because the preparation was "as s'.feet 
u 
saccharin.' 
The manufacturer wanted to convey that the preparation 'iWls alsG 
much sweeter than sugar and could be Uled for preparing soda water. [554 C-D) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 
1975. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and 
Order dated 
6-8-1974 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision No. 58 of 
1973. 
Frank Anthony, K. C. Dua and 0. P. Soni for the Appellants. 
C 
Soli. !. Sorabjee, Additiooal Soli. General, B. P. Maheshwari and 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Suresh Sethi for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Conrt was delivered by 
FAZAL Au, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against 
the Judgment of the Delhi High Court convicting the appellant under 
section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, read with 
Section 2(ix) clause (a) & (g) of the Act and sentenced to rigorous 
imprisomnent of six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. This order 
was passed by the High Court in a revision filed by the Municipal 
Corporation of Delhi against the Order of the Trial Court which con-
victed the appellant under section 7 /15 of the Prevention of Food 
Adulteration Act read with Section 2(ix) (k) of the Act and sentenced 
him to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine 
of 
Rs. 500/-, a revision against this order to the Sessions Jndge was un-
successful and hence a further revision was taken by the Delhi Adminis-

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.