M. V. JOSHI versus M. U. SHIMP! AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 986 · Decided: 27-02-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

February 27. 
986 
SUPRE:'.JE COURT REPORTS 
M. V. JOSHI 
v. 
M. U. SHIMP! AND ANOTHER. 
ll961] 
(K. SuBBA RAO and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
Food A'dulteration-Ritlter-If includes butter mode from curd 
-No foreign article mixed but below standard prescribed-· If ad11lc 
terated-Prevcntion of Food Adulteration Act, I954 137 of r954), 
. ss. z(i)(a), 7(i), I6(r)(a)·-Prevention of Food Adulteration Hules, 
1955, Appendix B, r. A-II, 0. 5. 
The appellant was selling butter which was found to be 
below the standard prescribed. He was convicted under s. 16(1) 
read withs. 7(i) of the Prevention of Fo:id Adulteration Act, 
1954, and sentenced to undPrgo rigorous imprisonment for two 
months and to pay a fine of l~s. 25oi-. 
He contended (i) that 
butter prepared from curd was not butter within the meaning of 
r. A-II, 0. 5 of Appendix B to the Rules which defined butter 
to mean •the product prepared exclusively from milk or 
cream ..•. ', and (ii) that the butter was not adulterated as no 
foreign article had been added to it. 
Held, that the appellant had been rightly convicted. 
Butter prepared from curd also came within the definition 
of "butter" in r. A-n, 0. 5 of Appendix B to the Rules. The 
plain meaning of the words user! in the rule indicated that 
butter prepared from milk or cream, by whatever process, was 
comprehended by the definition. Even where milk was first 
converted into curd and then butter prepared the.efrom, the 
butter was still".prepared from milk. 
Sadashiv v. P. V. Bhalerao, I.LR. [1959] Born. rSoo, approved. 
Section 2(i)(l) lays down that an article of food shall be 
deemed to be adulterated if its quality or purity falls below the 
prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quanti-
ties which are in excess of the prescribed limits of variability. 
If the prescribed standard is not attained, the statute treats 
such article, by fiction, as adulterated food though in fact no 
foreign article is added to it. Selling butter below the pres-
cribed standard amounted to selling adulterated butter. 
Hunt v. Richardson, [1916] 2 K.B. 446, distinguished. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION : 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 155 of 1959. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgmenj; order 
dated July 23, 1959, of the Bombay High Court in 
Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 1959. 
H. J. Umrigar, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadrichanji, 
Rameshwar Nath 
and 
Ravindei· Narain, 
for the 
appell>111 t. 
•• 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
987 
Naunit Lal, for respondent No. 1. 
B. K. Khanna and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent 
No. 2. 
1961. February 27. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
SuBBA RAO, J.-This appeal by special leave is 
directed against the judgment of the High Court of 
Judicature at Bombay allowing the appeal filed by 
respondent No. 1 against the acquittal of the appel-
lant by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thana, 
and convicting him unrler s. 16(1), read with s. 7(i), of 
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 
1954 
(hereinafter called the Act), and sentencing him to 
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to 
pay a fine of Rs. 250/-. 
The appellant is the proprietor of a shop at Thana 
known as the Cottage Industries. He is a dealer in 
butter. On June 27, 1957, the Food Inspector of the 
Thana Borough Municipality visited the shop of the 
appellant and purchased from him some quantity of 
Khandeshi butter. After purchasing the butter, the 
Food Inspector notified his intention to the appellant 
that he was going to get the butter analysed. He 
divided the butter into three equal parts, put them iri 
three separate bottles and duly sealed the bottles in 
the presence of two panchas. 
He gave one of those 
bottles to the appellant, sent one to the Public Analyst 
and kept the third with himself. The appellant signed 
the labels on the bottles and also passed a receipt in 
favour of the Food Inspector in token of the receipt 
of one of the bottles and that receipt was signed by 
the appellant and counter-signed by two panch 
witnesses. 
The Public Analyst analysed the butter sent to him 
· and sent his report in due course. In the report it 
was stated that the butter contained 18·:J2% foreign 
fat, 19·57% moisture and 64·67% milk fat. 
On October 5, 1957, the Food Inspector filed a co111-
plaint jn the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First 
Class, Thana, against the appdlant. It was 11-lle~ed 
u6 
Joshi 
v. 
Shimpi 
Subba Rao]. 
Joshi 
v. 
Shimpi 
SvbbaRao ]. 
988 
SUPREME COURT R

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