LexMANGALDAS RAGHAVJI RUPAREL & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MANGALDAS RAGHA vn RUPAREL & ANR.
A
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
February 8, 1965
[K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH,
J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND S. M. SIKRI, JI.]
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (37 of 19S4) a. 2(zUl), 7(11),
10, 11, 13(S), 16(1) (a) and 19(1)-Public Analyst-Report of-If Su/Ii·
clent for conviction when analyst not ezamined-Mens rea-If prosecu-
tion should establish-Compulsory sale of sample to Food Inspector-If
"sale" under Act.
The three appellants were a wholesale dealer in spices, a dealer In
groceries, and his servant respectively.
The second appellant purchuecl
a bag of turmeric powder from the first and the third. appellant took deli-
very of it on behalf of the second appellant, his master. Immediately after it
was taken delivery of, the food inspector purchased from the third appellant
some turmeric powder contained in that bag for the purpose of analysis, and
after issuing notice to the third appellant as required by s. 11 of the Preven·
tion of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, sent a portion of the p0wder purchased
to the public analyst, who gave a report that it was adulterated food. Tbo
three appellants were then prosecuted under ss. 6(1)(a) read withs. 7(v)
of the Act and convicted by the Magistrate. The conviction was confirmed
by the High Court. In the appeal to this Court it was contended
that, (i) the report of the public analyst, by itself was not sufllcient ID
sustain the conviction, and the public analyst should have been called as
a witness, (ii) the report of the public analyst could not be uaed as evidence
against a person who was not given notice under s. 11 of the Act, (iii) the
first appellant could not be convicted without establishing that he had the
mens rea, and (iv) the taking of the sample under s. 10 by a food inspector,
was not a "sale" within the meaning of s. 2(xiii) and therefore s. 7(v)
of the Act was not infringed.
HELD: (i) Section 13(5) of the Act, makes the report of the public
analyst admissible in evidence and a Court of fact is free to act on it or
not, as it thinks fit. The Court could therefore legally act solely on the
l>a&is of the report and the prosecution c0uld not fail on the ground that
the public analyst was not called as a witness. If the appellant wanted the
analyst to be examined, it was for the appellant to take appropriate atepe.
[900 F; 902 C-D]
B
c
D
E
F
(ii) The law requires notice under s. 11 to be given only ID the per-
son from whom the sample was taken and none else. If that formality
had been complied with and the report of the analyst is placed on record
at the trial, it would be admissible against all the accused persons. [902 H;
G
903 CJ
(iii) The word "vendor" in s. 19(1) means the person who had lold
the article of food which was alleged to be adulterated. At one stage, the
first appellant was the vendor of the turmeric powder. Since the section
deprives the vendor of adulterated food of the defence of merely illleging
that he was ignorant of the nature, substance or quality of the article of
food sold by him, the burden of showing that he had no
me111 rea ID
H
commit the offence would be upon the first appellant. {904 B-D]
State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, [1965] 1 S.C.R., 123 fol·
lowed.
M, RAGHAVJI v. STATE (Mudholkar, J.)
895
A
(iv) The definition of "sale" in s. 2(xiii) of the Act, apecifically
includes within its ambit a sale for analysis. The transaction in the instant
case would amount to sale inspite of the fact that where a person is ie-
quired by the food inspector to sell him a sample of a commodity, there
is an element of compulsion under s. 10 of the Act. [906 HJ
Sarjo Prasad v. State of U.P., [1961] 3 S.C.R. 324, M. Y. Joshi v.
M. U. Shimpi, [1961] 3 S.C.R. 986 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kartar
B
Singh, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1135, referred to.
Food Inspector v. Parameswaran, [1962] 1 Cr. L.J. 652, overmled.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
113 of 1963.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated
C April 19, 1963, of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 988 of 1962.
V. B. Ganatra and /. N. Shroff, for the appellant (Cr. A. No.
57 of 1963).
D
Frank Anthony, E. C. Agarwala and P. C. Agrawal, for the
appellant (in Cr. A. No. 113 of 1963 ).
E
S. G. Patwardhan and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the respondent
-State (in both the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by :
MndExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.