FOOD INSPECTOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BARODA versus MADANLAL RAMLAL SHARMA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 9 · Decided: 14-12-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-"" 
FOOD INSPECTOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 
BARODA 
v. 
MADANLAL RAMLAL SHARMA AND ANOTHER. 
December 14, 1982 
(D.A. DESAI AND R.~. t,flSRA, JJ.]. 
Prevent/on of Food Adultlralion Act, 1954-Pr~Parati~n of sample for 
anoly1is-Milk and Milk preparations including curd-Churning by hand makes 
sample homogeneous and representa'tiv~Law does not 'rtQuire ChuMing by any 
instrument. 
The re-spondfut · was convicted and seOtCDced rOr an offence under the 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 oil l! complaint that a sample of curd 
purchased from his shop had been found not to confotm ·to the standard pres-
cribed. He preferred an appeal and the Sessions Judge acquitted him on the 
short ground that the sa:mple was not hoaiogeneous and representative of the 
Curd purchased as the curd had ·not been· churned properly before i.t 'w8s sent for 
analysis. The High Court affirmed this conclusioD. and dismissed the 3ppeats 
filed against the order of acquittal. 
The High Court, in preference to the evidence of the complainant that the 
churning of the sample had h«!t done with a spoon, placed reliance .on the evi-
dence led by the defence that the churning had not been done by .any instrument 
but it had been done by the complainant wi.th his hand. The High Court stated that 
since the prosecution had not challenged the defence version that ~be churning of 
the SOfllple had been done by means of hand alone, it had failed to prove that 
the churning bad beeil done io·a t)roilCr manner. ·· · · 
' 
Declining to interfdro with the acquittal of the respondent by !he two 
lower couris after ·a li!p!e Of lix years and dismissing the appeal, 
B 
c 
D 
E 
HELD : In milk and milk preparations including curd, it is distinctly 
possiblejhat the fat settles .. on the top and in.orde.r to find out whether the milk 
G 
ot its pi'eparation ~such as curd has prescrihed' content, the Sim.pie must be 
homogeneous and representative so that:the analysis c:an furnish reliable proof of 
nature and content of the article of food 4lDder analY.is. For this purpdse 
. churn,ing is one of the methods of makil)g th<; sample ~omoseneous and repre .. n-
tative. But, there is nothing in the Act w tho Rules which .prescribes tbat 
H 
churning must be done by some instrument and that churning done. by hand 
would not provide a homogeneous and representatives 'sample. Commonsense 
dictates that articles of food like milk and curd when churned with hand would 
10 
SUPIBMB COUIT HPOITS 
(1983) 2 s.c.a. 
A 
properly mi•·UP from top to bottom. More so when the quantity is either 
600 grams which was the quantity purchased or 2·1/2 kg. which was the quantity 
io the container. (14 C-EJ 
B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
In the instant case, there was evidence that the churning was done by 
spoon. But even if the High Court found that evidence unreliable and the 
evidence of defence witness so much reliable that it was prepared 10 act upon 
it disagreeing with the other evidence, the evidence of defence witness was that 
churning was done with band, and be did no_t SI)' that . the churning was not 
effective. It is therefore difficult to subscribe to the view or the High Court that 
the churning done by hand would 
n~t meet with the requirements of making a 
sample homogeneous and representative. 
There has to be a finding that the 
churning done with band was not_ adequate. There is no such finding. 
The 
Hish Court was, tbertforC, .dot jUstifted 
i~ coD&i"Ot!oS t~c acquittal on this 
ground. [14 F·H; 1$ A] 
CRIMINAL APPBLLATB JURISDICflON : Criminal Appeal No. 605 
of 1981. 
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
the 8th April, 1980 of the Ahmedabad High Court in Criminal 
Appeal No. 218 of 1978 with Crl. Appeal No .. 603 of 1978. 
M.C. Bhandtire, T. Sridharall, Mr8. S. Bhandare and Mi8s C.K. 
Sauhantia for the Appellant. 
Miss Maya Rao for Respondent No. 1. 
J.L. Jain and R.N.- Poddar for Respondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court wa1 delivered by 
. 
' 
·. 
. 
. 
MISRA, J. lo this appeal by special leave the narrow questiou that 
this Court proposes to examine is whether the-High Court was right 
. in holding that churning of the curd of which a sample was taken, 
if done with hand, was done in a proper mao11cr so as to make the 
sample homogeneous and representative. 
The few relevant facts arc that Shri G. A. Parikh Food 
Inspector attached to Baroda MuniCipaJ Corporation visited the shop 
of the respondent No. I accused Madaolal Ramlal Sharma on 
Sep

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