JAGDISH PRASAD ALIAS JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1972] 2 S.C.R. 845 · Decided: 13-12-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
845 
JAGDISH PRASAD ALIAS JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
December 13, 1971 
(P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Prevention of Food 
A'dulteration Rules, 1955-Appendix B A 17.06-Public Analyst-Failure 
to report on al/ tests-Does not make report ineffective-Section 16(i)-
Sentience-Circustances justi/Ying reduction-Sanction-Bengal Municipal 
Act, 1932. 
The appellant, manager of an Oil Mill, 
was convicted under 
s. 7(i) /16(i) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, 
and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment. 
His appeal to the 
Sessions Judge was without success and a revision to the High Court, was 
also dismissed. 
In apinal to this Court it was contended that (i) the 
sanction for prosecution did not show (a) that the Chairman of the Muni-
cipality had applied his mind before giving the sanction, (b) that it was 
invalid since it was not granted by the local authority, namely, the muni-
cipality and ( c) that since the resolution of the Municipality had authorised 
the Chairman to give the sanction, the new Chairman could not avail him-
self of that authorisation and, therefore, the trial was vitiated for want of 
valid and legal sanction; (ii) the report of the Public Analyst was not a 
proper report in law and was bad and incomplete for failure to carry out 
all the tests required under A. 17.06 of Appendix- B to the Prevention of 
Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, and also for failure to disclose the data 
in the report; and (iv) the sentence awarded was harsh for a first offender. 
Reducing the sentence and dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: (i) Reading ss. 20 and 51 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, 
the Chairman of a municipality duly authorised by the municipality can 
accord sanction for prosecution of offences under the Act. The resolution 
of the Municipality authorising the Chairman to perform all the functions 
and exercise the powers of the local authority within fhe meaning of the 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is not to grant power to any 
particular Chairman eo noniinee, but, is a general power exercisable by 
any Chairman, for the time being, of the municipality. The High Court 
has rightly pointed out that under s. 15 (2) of the Bengal Municipality Act 
the Municipality is a body corporate and it has perpetual succession and, 
as such, any authorisation granted by it is not limited to the Chairman 
then in office but,will continue unless rescinded. [848 D; G·H] 
(ii) It is. true that the Public Analyst in his report has only indicated 
the result of the three tests out of which two tests were as indicated in 
A 17.06, while, only one, namely, the saponification test, was said to have 
exceeded the maximum on the strength of which the Public Analyst 
reported that the sample was adulterated. Omission to report on the other 
four tests does pot make the report ineffective or inconclusive. 
Even 
assuming that the other four tests are normal, if the saponification test 
alone did not conform to the standards indicated in A 17.06 of Appendix B 
to the Rules, the sample cannot be said to have come up to the standard · 
·and, therefore, it is adulterated. It is in exercise of the powers conferred 
by s. 23(i) (b) that rule 5 was made authorising standards of quality of 
846 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1972] 2 s.c.R. 
the various articles of food specified in Appendix B to the Rules. 
Stan-
dards having been . fixed, any person who deals in artic)es of food which 
do not conform to them contravenes the provisions of the Act and is 
liable to punishment thereunder. [849 A-C; 850 E] 
Andhra Pradesh Grain and Seed Merchants Association and o~hers v. 
Union of India & Anr., A.I.R. [1971) S.C. 2346, referred to. 
If the report of the Public Analyst was not satisfactory it was open 
to the appellant to make an application for sending the sample which was 
in his possession to the Director. If he had made such an application and 
sent the sample under s. 13(2) the certificate granted by the Director of 
the Central Food Laboratory would have superseded the report. given by 
the Public Analyst. 
This has not been done. 
In the circumstances he 
has been properly convicted. [850 HJ 
(iv) The reason for the legislature to make exoeption to the minimum 
of sLx months rigorous imprisonment prescribed under s. 16(1) is not that 
the offences specified are not considered to be serious, but the gravity
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.