JAI NARAIN versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 923 · Decided: 23-08-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
• 
B~ . 
• 
' 
c 
D 
E 
' 
F 
G 
H 
JAi NARAIN 
v. 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI 
August 23, 1972 
. [J. M. SHELAT, I. D. DUA AND H. R. KHANNA,. JJ.] 
923 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Ss. 2(1) (J), 7(1), 16(1) 
-Sale of patjsa prepared with unper1nitted Coal tar dye--Activity-
being distinctly anti.,sociol if s. 4 Probation of Offenders Act could be 
applied-Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 
In lsherdas v. Punjab this Court held on a cornideration of s. 18 
of the Probation of offenders Act that its operation is not excluded in 
cases of persons found guilty of offences under ~he Prevention of Food 
Adulteration Act, 1954. 
That decis'ion however, expressed a note of 
caution that adulteration of food being a menace to public health and 
the Act having been enacted with the object of . eradicating that anti-
social evil and for ensuring purity of articles of food sold to the members 
of the public, Courts should not lightly resort to the provisions of s.4 
of the Probation of Offenders Ao't. 
Isherdas v. Punjab· A.LR. 1972 S.C. 1295. 
The appellant, an employee of a sweetmeat shop found guilty under 
s.7(1) read with s. 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 
and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of six months 
and 
of rupees one thousand. It was found that the patisa sold by him were 
prepared with unpermitted coal far dye and therefore, 
were 
adultera-
ted food stuff as defined by s. 2(1 )(j). On the question whether in the 
circumstances of the case and the nature of the evil to prevent which 
s.. 16 of the Prevention of Food· .i\dulteration Act was enacted, s. 4, 
of the Probation of Offenders Act could be applied. 
HELD : The sale of an article of food prepared \\ith unpermittcd 
coal tar dye is an anti-social activity, deleterious to the health of those 
\vho would consume them as article of food, the ·cradiction of \vhich is 
the priacipal aim of the Act and in particular of s.16 thereof. The 
evil would appear to be more perniciom when it is realised that patisa 
are more often than not purchased and consumed by children and by 
persons from- the non-affluent sections of the society. 
The colouring 
matter was obviously used to attract customers, without any regard to 
the injury it would cause to these who consumed them. The appellant's 
activity being thus. distinctly_ anti-social, it \vould be neither expedient 
nor in consonance \Vith the object \\·ith v:hich the Prevention of Food 
Act. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
Criminal Appeal 
No. 172 of 1969. 
App.ea! by certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Con-
stitution of India from the iudgment and order dated June 20, 
1969 of the Delhi. High Court at New Delhi in Criminal Revi-
sion No. 385 of 1968. 
924 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1973] l S.C.R. 
Hardev Singh, for the appellant. 
A 
Jindra Lal and B. P. Maheslnvari, for the respond·~nt. 
The Judgment of the .Court was delivered by 
Shelat, J. In March 1967, the appellant was an employee 
in a sweetmeat shop, known as Bengal Sweet Shop being. shop 
D 
No. 6, Sector II, in Ramakrishna Puram, New Delhi. _The shop 
was owned by one Budh Ram and one A. K. Bhattacharya. 
On March 15, 1967; wit. F. Dean, a Food Inspector in· the 
employment of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi; went' to the. 
said shop and purchased 'patisa' which were sold to him by the 
appellant. 
These were sold to him from a lot exposed for sale. 
C 
The Food Inspector then divided the patisa into three portions and 
packed each of them into sealed bottles, one of which was handed 
over by him to the appellant. 
On an analysis of the sample by the Public Analyst appointed 
under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, XXXVII of 1954 
it was found. that the patisa were prepared with unpermitted coal 
tar dye, and therefore, were adulterated food stuff. 
A complaint 
to that effect was filed before the Magistrate, 1st Class, Delhi, who, 
after recording evidence, found the appellant and the said Budh 
Ram guilty under s. 7 ( 1) read with s. 16 ( 1) of the Act, and 
sentenced each of the two accused to simple imprisonment for a 
period of six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default imprison-
ment for a further period of three months. 
On an appeal by the 
appellant and his co-accused, the said Budh Ram, the Additional 
Sessions Judge allowed Budh Ram's appeal and set aside the order 
of conviction passed against him on the ground that though he 
and the said Bhattacharya were partners in

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