MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELH versus TEK CHAND BHATIA

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 910 · Decided: 11-10-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

910 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI 
v. 
TEK CHAND BHATIA 
October 11, 1979 
• 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] 
Pre;,ention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 2(i)(f). interpreiation 
~ 
of-The words "or is otherwise unfit for human consumption" are disjunctive of 
~~ 
the rest of the words preceding them-Warranty, whether the mere description 
of the words in the sealed container as "SW Best Born1a" entitles protection 
C 
under S. 19(2) of the Act, 
I· 
D 
E 
F 
G 
The respondent is a partner of the Firm M/s. Narain Dass Tek Chand, Khari 
Baoli, Delhi. The firm is engaged in wholesale business in dry fruits including 
cashew nuts which it gets from different manufacturers, 
On August 1, 1968, 
these samples of cashew nuts were taken from its shop by the Food Inspectors 
PWs I and 3, ftom three sealed tins supplied by Sri Venkateswara Cashews, 
Panruti and were for\varded to the Public Analyst, Delhi who by his three 
reports dated August 3, 1968 in Form III Ex!$. 'PE, PE/I and PE/2. found 
ti::tat all the three samples taken were "insect infested". 
Of these, two were 
insect-infested to the extent of 20.6 and 20.7 per cent and the third to the 
extent of 5.63 per cent. 
Both the trial Magistrate and the Delhi High Court 
1J.cquitted the Respondent. 
The High Court relying on its earlier decision in 
Dha11raj"s case ILR (197()) 2 Delhi 681, held th~t merely because an article of 
food is insect-infested it cannot be treated as "adulterated" within the meaning 
of section 2(i) (f) of th~ Act, unless it is further proved to be 'otherwise unfit 
for huma..'"! consumption' within the meaning of that section. In that view, it 
did not touch upon the question whether the invoice Ext. ow· 3/ A was sufficient 
warranty in law as to the purity of the article sold. 
Allowing the appeal on certificate, the Court, 
HELD : L The interpretation of Section 2(i) (f) by the High Court was 
clearly wrong. On the plain language of the definition section, it is 
quite 
apparent that the words "or is otherwise unfit for human consumption" are 
disjunctive of the rest of the words preceding them. 
(b) It relates to.a distinct 
and separate class altogether. The last clause "or is otherwise unfit for human 
consumption" is residuary provision which would apply to a case not covered 
by or falling squarely within the clauses preceding it. 
( c) If the phrase is to be 
read disjunctively the mere proof of the article of food being "filthy, 'putrid, 
rotten, decomposed ...... or insect-infested" would b:.;! per se sufficient to bring 
the case within the purview of the word "adulterated" as defined ill sub-clause 
( f) and it would not be necessary in such a case to prove further that the 
article of food was unfit for human consmuption. [914 F-H, 915A] 
(c) The decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo 
Mal, [1976] 2 SCR I approving the decision in Dhanraj's case ILR (1970) 2 
Delhi 681 should be confined to the particular facts of that case. The decision 
in tllat case was largely based on the circumstance that the standard of quality 
• 
• 
o( • t 
• 
i'· 
-J. • 
... 
-j 
• 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION V. T. C. BHATIA 
911 
:and purity '.Vas .not prescribed in respect of oashe,vnuts. Now that Rule 48-B of 
:the Preventi•)n of Faod Adulteration Rules in 1955 has been framed, the decision 
in Kacheroo Mal's case is rendered inapplicable. [916 B-C] 
(d) In the definition clause, the collocation of words filthy, rotten, decom-
posed a.n<l i:nsect-infested" which are adjectives qualifying the term 
1an article 
'Of food' show that it is not of the nature, substance and quality fit for human 
consumption. 
A comma after each of the first three words is significant. These 
qualifying adjectives cannot be read with the Jast portion of the definition i.e., 
the v.·ords "or is otherwise unfit for human consump~ion" which is quite separate 
and distinct from others. [916 D-E] 
(e) The word "otherwise" signifies unfitness for human consumption due 
to other ai.uses. If the last portion is meant to mean Something different, it 
becomes diJficult to understand how the word 'or' as used in the definition of 
'adulterated' in s. L(i) (f) between "filthy, putrid, rotten, etc." and "otherwise 
unfit for human consumption" could have been intended to be 
used 
con-
junctively. It would be more appropriate in the context to read it 
disjunc-
iive!y. [916 E-F] 
(f) The word "or" is normally disjunctive and "and" is normal

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