MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus KACHEROO MAL

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 29-09-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
.. 
• 
: MUNICIPAL.CORPORATION.OF DELHI 
v. 
KACHEROO MAL 
September 29, 1975 
. fR. s. SARKARL\ AND A. c. GUPTA, JJ.] 
l 
Interpretation o( statute-:Suppress the mischief and advance the remedy-
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act-S. 2 (i)(f)-Proof of sample being 
insect infested enough or whet.her f11rd1er proof of 
bein.~ 1111/it for human 
consumption-Mealling of insecr infesied-Whet/ier insecri must be living. 
The Food Inspector purchased cashewnui pieces as sample for analysis from 
the grocery shop of the respondent. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst 
who reported that the cashewmits _were insect infested. 
After receiving 
the 
report from the Public Analyst the Food Inspector prosecuted th(l respondent 
in. respect of an offence under s. 7 read with s. 16 of the -Prevention of Food 
A 
R 
Adulteration Act, 1954. 
The trial Magistrate convicted 
and 
sentenced the 
c· 
respondent to 6 months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Res-
pondent's appeal before the Sessions Jndge failed. 
, 
. A revision filed by the respondent before the High Court succeeded. 
The· 
High Court held that since it was BO! proved that the sample contained living 
insects, the same could not be called 'insect infested' within the meaning of 
~·- 2(i) (f) of the Act. 
The High Court held that the presence of living inse~t 
is· necessary before an article could .be called insect infested. According. to the 
High Court the intention of the Legislature was that at the time of analysis 
infestation by insects should be p1'esent. The High Court further observed thatif 
only dead insects were present the sample cou]d, be called insect damaged and 
not insect infested. 
Since the report of ~he Public Analyst did not show the 
!Dresence of living insects it was conchided that the same could not be said to 
be a_dulterated.· The High_ Court, thus, set aside the conviqion .. of the respondent. 
S. 2(i) (f) reads· as under : 
"If the article. consists who!Ly or ip part of any· filthy, putrid, dis-
v: 
gusting, rotten, qecomposed. or diseased animal or vegetable substance 
"" 
or is insect infested or is. otherwise unfit for human consumption." 
On appeal by special leave, the appellant contended : 
(i) the constmction 
of the expression insect infested given liy the High Court was wrong and .. that 
it was contrary to a Division Bench judgment of the ~ame High Court in the 
case of Dhanraj; (ii) in 
the case of food 
articles for which no 
minimum 
standard of purity is prescribed, as in the present case for cashewnuts, 
the 
moment it is proved that a propor!ion or percentage of the article is putrid, 
filthy, disgusting, decomposed or insect-infested, it would be d_eemed to be unfit 
for human consumption and, therefore, 'adulterated' within the contemplation 
of s. 2(i)(f); and (iii), in the alternative, it was contended that it is implicit 
in the report of the Public Analyst that. tl).e article in question was found unfit 
for human consumption . 
· The respondent on the contrary cont~nqed that mere proof . of the fact that 
a sample sent to the Public Analyst was found to be insect infested could not 
make the ariicle 'adnlterated' unless it was further proved that the article was 
unfit for human consumption~ i:n the present case there is no proof of that 
essential fact. 
The Public Analyst in . his report did not siate that the insect 
irifestation found by him had rendered _the article unfit for human consumption. 
: HELD·: ( 1) The. constructfon pµt by tllt: High ~ip:t on s. 2(i)(f) is ma~­
fe_;>tly erroneous. . It has . been disapproved. bl'.' a D_1v1S1on Bench of, ~he same 
High Court in,Dlw.111:ai's case, The Act has be.en enacnea to Cljrb tpe widespread 
evil of food adulteration ai:ld. to ensure.· tlie, sale of wholesome food· to the 
pe9ple. ·. J'n~ iangµage ;of such statµte' stjc/i,ilcf b.e : co~stfued' lp.1 __ fl Iij~ilner which 
" 
~, IJ 
r'' 
~ r 
G-
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
·G 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 2 S.C.R. 
-:vould suppress. Uhe mischi.ef._ advance the remedy, promote its object, prevmt 
its subtle. evas10n and foil its artful .c1rcumvent10n. 
The construction adopted 
by the .High Co?rt is repugnant to this cardinal rule of interpretation. It would 
be. stia.mmg .ones comm~nsense to sa" th3t an article of f9od which is infested 
wnh hvmg msfrts and is consequently unwholesome f~r human consumption, 
ceases .to be so . and. becom.es wholesome when these msects die out and the 
mfestauon 

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