CHARANJI LAL versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 513 · Decided: 25-10-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
.... 
513 
CHARANJI LAL 
v. 
STATE' OF PUNJAB 
October 25, 1983 
[A.P. SEN AND D.P. MADON, JJ.) 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13 
- Words-Lost or dan1aged-Appearing in proviso-lnterpretalion of. lost-Not 
confined to loss only after actual despatch of sample but includes loss after court 
order for despatch of sample. Danwge-means da,,, .. age due _to any reason 
·ihcluding decomposition taking place either before or after order of the court. 
Interpretation of statute-Rule of-Words used by legislature do not 
always bear a plain meaning. 
Words and phrases-Dan1age:_Meaning of. 
A Food Inspector took a sample of kutcha kho,ra from the shop of the 
appellant and after dividing it·into three equal parts and sealing them, sent one 
part to the public analyst and.the other two parts to the Local (Health) Autho-
rity. On analysis .the public ~nalys't found the sample to be adulterated, but 
the fat content of the sample was reported to be 25%. Prosecution was Jaun-
Ched against the appellant under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 
1954. On appellant's request under sub-s. (2) of s. 13 of the Act the trial court. 
sent one of the remaining two parts of the sample to the Director, Central Food 
Laboratory. Calcutta for purposes of analysis under sub-s. (2B). The Director 
intimated that the saqiple received by him was decomposed and therefore unfit 
for analysis and asked for the counter-part of the sample. After a period of 
six months the trial court foi'warded the remaining part of the sample to the 
Diiector~ Central Foo4 Laboratory, Ghaziabad who reported that the sample 
. was adulterated, but found that the_ fat content of the sample was ~3.12%. 
The trial court _acquitted the appellant. On appeal by the State the High Court 
convicted the appellan~. The questions which arose in 'this appt:al Were : 
(i) whether the part of the sample sent by the ti-ial court to the Director 
Central Fo'od Laboratory Calcutta was damaged within the meaning of provis~ 
to sub-s. (2Cj of s. 13 of the Act and (ii) whether the kutcha khoya sold by the 
appellant Was adulterated within the meaning of s. 2 (ia) (1) of the Act. 
Partly allowii;ig the appeal and partly remitting the matter to the High 
Court, 
"' 
HELD : The problem of interpretation is a problem of meaning of 
words and their effectiven_ess to communicate a J>articular thought. In all 
ordinary cases priinaril:Y the· language employed is the determining factor but 
words used by the Legislature do llot always bear a plain meaning. 
' 
[520H; 521A] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G' 
B 
514 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1984) 1 S,C.R. 
. 
The word ''daniaged" in the collocation Of ihe words "lost or damaged" 
' appearing in~ the p~oviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13 in. relation to the part of the 
sample" Sent by the court to the Director of the Central Food Laborator.Y must, 
in the' context, mean "damaged due tO any cause, including decomposition": 
The word •'damaged" must be construed in furtherance of the object and 
purpose of insertiag the provisions. The whole purpose Of depositing two~parts 
of the sample with the Local (Health) Authority is that if one of the parts of 
the sani.ple is lost or damaged for any reason whatever the' remaining part maY 
still be available for analysis. [522 E; G-Hl 
State v. Joginder Lal Kapoor, (1980) 1 FAC 86 approved. 
Rani Prakash v. State· of ilimachal Pradesh (1979) Crl. L.J. 750 and 
Darsha.n Lal v. State of Punjab (1982) 1PAC290 overruled. 
" 
. 
It is not necessary that the~· loss contemplated by the proviso to sub-s. 
(2C) of s. 13 should take place ooly after the actual despatch of the part of the 
samplf: to the Central Food Laboratory has comn1enced. Even if that.part of 
the sample is lost .after the' court has directed it to be sent and before the actual 
trans!t has commenced, that part of the sample would te "lost" withiri the 
meaning of the prpviso to sub s. (2C) Of s. 13. So far as damage in the .senSe 
of decomposition of that part of the sarriple sent to the Cen-tral Food Labora-
tory is concerned, it may take place either before or after the Court -directs its 
despatc~ to the Central Food Laboratory. If damage in the sense of decom-
position were to be interpreted to mean decomposition taking Place during tlle 
course of tr<l;nsit, it Wouid frustrate the very object of Parliament in enacting 
the proviso to sub'.s; (2C) of s. 13. [524 B-D]. 
State v. Joginder L

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