FOOD INSPECTOR, CALICUT CORPORATION versus CHERUKATTIL GOPALAN AND ANR.

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 721 · Decided: 06-05-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

72J 
FOOD INSPECTOR, CALICUT C0Rl'ORA't10N 
A 
v. 
CHERUKATrlL GOPALAN AND ANR. 
May 6, 1971. 
[C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954)-Section 16 
(l)(a)(i)-Sale of Food for ana/ysit-To be guilty of offence under section, 
food need not be intended for sale and person selling need not be a dealer. 
A sale of an article of food for analysis being "sale" within the mean-
ing of s. 2(xiii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, an 
anicle of food sold to the Food Inspector, if found to be adulterated. the 
M:Cuse<i will be guilty of an offence punishable under s. l6(1)(a)(i) read with 
s. 7 of the Act. The article of food purchased by the Food Inspector need 
not nave been taken out from a larg~r quantity intended for .sale and 
Ibo person from whom the article of food has been purchased need not 
be a dealer as such in that article, [729 G] 
Where sugar purchased by the Food Inspector from the Respondents' 
tea stall was found to be adulterated and the Respondents were charged 
with an offence under s. 
16(1) (a) (i) of the Act, the respondents must 
be held guilty of tLe oIIt:nct: charged wilh, even though the tiugac purchas-
ec( was not intended for sale as such and the respondents were not dealers 
in ~ar. 
Mangaldas Raghavii Ruparel and Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra 
JJnd Anr., (1965] 2 S.C.R. 849, State of Gujarat v. Asa11tlas Kimmairai 
Kevalramanni, Al.R. 1.964 Guj. 191, Municipal Board, Faizabad v. Lal 
Chand Sura;ma/ and Anr., A.I.R. 1964 All. 199 and The Public Prosecutor 
v. Palanisami, A.l.R. 1965 Mad. 98, referred to. 
Public Prosecutor v, Kandasamy Reddiar, A.l.R. 1959 Mad. 33, Ex-
plained. 
ln re : Govinda Rao, A.I.R. 1960 Andhra Pradesh 366, disapproved. 
CR!MINAL AB.PELLATB JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
281 of 1968. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
June 26, 1968 of the Kerala High Court in Criminal Appeal 
No. 113 of 1968. 
A. Sriedharan Nambiar, for the appellant. 
S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta, and K. R. Nagaraja, for the 
respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
c 
D 
E 
p 
G 
Valdlallnpm, J~This appeal, by special leave, by the Food 
H 
Inspector, Calicut Corporation, is directed against the judgment 
and order dated 1.une 26, 1968 of the. Kerala High Court in 
46-1 S.C. fodia/71 
722 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1971] SUPP. s.c.R. 
Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 1968 confirming the acquittal of 
the respondents of an offence under s. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Preven-
tion ot Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act No. 37 
of 
1954) 
(hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). 
The first respondent is the Manager and the second respon-
dent, his wife, are the owner and licencee of a tea stall in the 
premises No. 41777 Customs Road, Calicut. They were accused 
Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 
On November 17, 1965 
at about 
9.45 AM., the Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation, purchased 
from the first respondent 600 grams of sugar for a price of 78 paise 
for analysis from the stock of sugar kept in the premises to be 
used in the preparation of tea sold to customers in the said tea 
stall run by the second respondent under the licence issued by 
the Corporation. The quantity of sugar so purchased was sampled 
as per the rules in the presence of the first accused and 
the 
witnesses. 
One portion of the sample was sent to the Public 
Analyst for analysis. The Analyst in his report Ex. P. 3 dated 
December 28, 1965 has certified that the sample contained arti-
ficial sweetner saccharin equivalent to about seven percent of 
cane sugar and therefore it was adulterated. In fact the analysis 
is as follows 
"Ash 
Total sugar 
as cane sugar 
Saccharin 
0.02 per cent 
96.00 per cent 
14.0 mgs. per 100 gms." 
On the basis of this report the Food Inspector 
filed 
un 
March 21, 1966 a complaint against the two accused 
in 
the 
Court of the District Magistrate, (Judicial), Calicut. After setting 
out the necessary facts and the report of the Public Analyst, the 
complaint alleged that the sale of such sub-standard food which 
was adulterated is prohibited under s. 7 read with item A. 07.01 
in appendix to the rules framed under the Act and therefore, it 
was an offence. 
There is a reference to the conviction of the 
first accused on prior occasions. It is not necessary for us now 
to refer it. 
Both the accused were charged of an offence under s. 16(l)(a)(i) 
of the Act for having sold on Novemb

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