DINESHCHANDRA JAMNADAS GANDHI versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 138 · Decided: 17-01-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA, M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
DINESHCHANDRA JAMNADAS GANDHI 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. 
JANUARY 17, 1989 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.] 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Section 16( l)(a) (i)/ 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955: Rules 23, 28, 29(f) 
(prior to amendment dated November 15, 1984) and 29(m), Appendix 
B item ]~Conviction for having sold 'kesari coloured sweet supari 
sali' adulterated with yellow basic coal-tar dye-Validity of-Supari 
whether 'Fruit-product' or 'flavouring agent'. 
Statutory Interpretation: Social defence legislation-Statutory 
language-Distinction between literal and legal meaning-Court not 
entitled to determine legal meaning of statute on principle of non-
D liquet-Penal provision prescribing strict liability-Wider meaning 
impermissible. 
E 
Criminal Trial-Benefit of doubt-Where mere actus reus itself an 
offence-Offence committed bonafide on a particular understanding of 
j 
statute-Does not entitle the accused to benefit of doubt. 
Words and Phrases: 'Supari'-'Fruit Product'-Meaning of. 
Rule 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 pro-
hibits the addition of any colouring matter to an article of food, except 
as specifically permitted by the rules. Rule 28 interdicts use of coal-tar 
~
F 
food colours or a mixture thereof, except those specifically enumerated 
therein, in food. Item 2 of the said list includes 'sun-set yellow FCF'. 
Rule 29 prohibits the use of even the coal-tar food colours permitted 
under Rule 28, in or upon any food, other than those enumerated in 
Rule 29. 'Fruit-products' was one such item of food so enumerated 
under cl.(f) of Rule 29 as it stood at the relevant time. Section 16 of the 
G 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 provides for punishment of 
the offenders. 
The appellant, a tradesman, was found guilty by the Trial Court 
of the offence of selling 'Kesari-coloured sweet supari sali' adulterated 
with yellow basic coal-tar dye and sentenced to one year's simple im-
H prisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000, both being statutorily compulsory 
138 
D.J. GANDHI v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
139 
j-
minimum sentences under s. I6(l)(a)(i) of the Act. He was, however, 
A 
acquitted of the charge by the lirst appellate court but on appeal by the 
State the High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal and restored 
the conviction and sentence. 
In this appeal by special leave, it was contended for the appellant 
/It 
that the legislation being penal, the expression 'Fruit-products' in Rule 
B 
29(f) should receive a reasonably liberal construction, and if so con-
strued, •supari' being basically and essentially an yield of the areca-
palm would reasonably admit of being considered such a fruit-product 
'-~ in which the use of coal-tar colours was not prohibited. In the alterna-
·' 
' 
tive, it was contended that 'supari' in the form in which it was offered 
for sale in this case was a 'flavouring agent' within the meaning of Rule c 
29(m), in which case also the use of permitted coal-tar food colours was 
1 
not prohibited. It was further contended that the appellant having acted 
bona-Ji.de on a particular understanding of Rule 29(f) which could not 
be said to be wholly implausible, he should be entitled to the benelit of 
doubt. Lastly, a grievance was made that the appellant, who was a 
small-time tradesman and had purchased the supari from a big 
D 
manufacturer to sell in retail, had alone been exposed to prosecution 
while the distributor had gone scot free. 
J .. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: I. I The scheme of Rule 23, 28 and 29 of the Prevention of 
E 
Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 makes it apparent that coal-tar food 
·:. 
colours permitted by Rule 28 can be used if the food articles in question 
are 'Fruit-products' as understood in Rule 29(f). [144C, F] 
} 
l.2 •Supari' in the form in which it was offered for sale in the 
instant case though vegetative in origin and derived from and prepared 
F 
out of the usufruct of areca palm, does not admit of being classilied as a 
'Fruit-product' under Rule 29(f). Merely because a particular article of 
food was of plant origin did not render that article necessarily a 'Fruit-
product'. Even products derived from, or associated in their origin with 
fruits need not ipso facto be 'Fruit-products' for purposes and within 
the meaning of Rule 29(f). Item 16 of Appendix B to the Rules, which 
G 
..... 
dealt with 'Fruit-products', referred to juice, syrup, squash, beverage, 
drinks

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