DWARKA NATH & ANR. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 466 · Decided: 23-04-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

466 
A 
DWARKA NATH & ANR. 
v. 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI 
April 23, 1971 
B 
[S. M. Snoo, c. J., c. A. VAJDIALINGAM AND A. N. RAY, JJ.) 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (37 of 1954), s. 23(1) (c), (d), 
(/)and (g), and Rules made thereunder r. 32(b) and (e}-If within ruJe.mak-
ing power. 
The appellants were carrying on business in ghee. On the h1bels of 
the tins of ghee the name of the business premises of the appellants and 
the postal division were given but the number of premises and the l1Jcality 
where the premises was situate were not given. 
On the ground that the 
label did not conform to the packing and labeUing rules as required under 
r. 32(b) and (e) of the rules made under s. 23(1) of the Prevention of Food 
Adulteration Act, 1954, the appellants were prosecuted and were convict· 
ed, and a token fine of Re. 1 was imposed on them. The judgment of the 
High Court emphasised upon the violation of r. 32(e). 
Rule 32(e) provides that every label should specify the batch .number 
or code number either in Hindi or English null)ericals or alphabets or in 
combination, and r. 32(b) requires the name and address 'of the manufac-
turer or importer or vendor or pl\cker to be -given on every label. The 
first proviso to r. 32 excludes the operation of els. (a) to (e) of the said rule 
in respect of food packages weighing not more than 60 grams. 
On the question whether sub-rr. 32(b) and (e) were within the rule 
making power under s. 23(1) els. (c), (d), (f), and (g). 
HELD: (I) The sub-rules could not have been made under cl. 
(c). 
That clause deals with provisions for imposing rig9rous control over pro~ 
duction, distribution and sale of any article or class of articles of food 
notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. But no such 
notification regarding ghee had been issued by the Central Government. 
[4748} 
(2) Clause (f) relates to prohibiting the sale or defining' the conditions 
of sale of any substance injurious to health when used as food. This clause 
also has no application because ghee is not a substance injurious to health 
when used as food. [474C] 
(3) Clause (g) will have no application because one of the essential 
requirements therein is that the rules made under it should be related to 
the interest of public health. Any rule made under this clause must be of 
universal application because it is in the interest of public health. The 
requirement regarding compliance with any such rule cannot depend upon 
the quantity of food packed in any container. Therefore, the fact that 
food packages not weighing more than 60 grams are excluded under the 
proviso to the rule is an indication that r. 32 is not framed under s. 23(1) 
(Ill of the Act. [4740-F] 
(4) The object of a rule framed under s. 23(1) (d) must be with a 
view to preventing the public or the purchaser being deceived or misled 
as to the character, quality or quantity of the article. The giving of the 
DWARKA NATH I'. MUNIC. CGlU'. \'Vaitiialingom, J.) 
batch number or code number alone without giving any .further particulars 
such as the date of manufacture of the article and the period within which 
the said article has to be used or consumed and the quantity of the article 
in the container will not prevent the public or a purchaser from being 
-Oeceived or misled as to the character, quality or quantity of the article. 
[4740-H ; 47SA·B] 
. 
In the present case there was no obligation to specify on the label 
the date of packing and manufacture of the article of food or the period 
within which the article of food has to be U8Cd or consumed. 
Jn the 
.absence of any such obligation there is no rational or even a remote 
connection between 
the batch Or code number artificially given by a 
packer and the public or purchaser being prevented from being deceived 
or misled as to the character, quality or quantity of the article contained 
in a sealed tin. [47SC-EJ 
Therefore r. 32(e) is beyond the rule making power even under s. 23 
(1) (d} of the Act. Since r. 32(e) is invalid the appellants could not have 
been convicted for its violation. [475E-F1 
(S} But r. 32(b) is within the rule making power under s. 23(1) (dl, 
because, it is well known that in many cases in business the name and 
address of a manufacturer or importer or vendor or packer has become 
ossociated with the character quality or quantity of the article. [4768) 
In the present case, there is a substantial compliance wi

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