OM PRAKASH versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION & ANR.

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 981 · Decided: 10-12-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
981 
OM PRAKASH 
v. 
DELHI ADMINISTRATION & ANR. 
December 10, 1975 
[P. N. BHAGWATI AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.] 
Preve111ion of Food Adulteration Act (37 of 1954), section 7-Taking of 
'\ 
samples from differellt receptacles of food for analysis at one time-Whether one 
or several safes and one or sevual offences. 
Samples of cow's milk were taken by the concerned officers from 6 out ~f 
several cans carried by the appellant in a truck and were sent for analysis. 
Finding the samples adulterated, the appellant was prosecuted for an offence 
punishable under s. 16 read with s. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration 
Act, 1954. 
Both the trial Court and the first Appellate Court treated the sales of six: 
samples as forming part of the same, transaction constituting one single offence. 
The High Court, in revision, held that the sale of each sample constituted a 
distinct and separate otf10nce, that the appdlant was, therefore, liable for 6 
different offences, and remanded the case for re-trial of the appellant for 6 
offences. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : (a) The acts prohibited by s. 7 include manufacturing for sale, 
storing, selling or distributing any adulterated article of food. Hence, not only 
is the act of storing for sale an offence, but also the act of selling out of the 
adulterated article of food so stored. The definition of "sale" in s. 2(xiii) in• 
chides sale for analysis. Therefore, where samples are taken for analysis from 
different receptacles, whether at one and the same time or at different times, 
each taking constitutes a distinct and independent sale, because, each sample 
would be taken for determining, by analysis, whether the article of food in a 
particular receptacle is adulterated or not. The taking of each sample would 
be necessary and justified, because, it may be that the article of food in one 
receptacle is adulterated while in the other it is not, or, the nature and degree 
of adulteration may vary from receptacle to receptacle. It is only where 
samples are taken from the same receptacle at one and the same time or within 
reasonable proximity of time that it may not be possible to say that the taking 
of each of those samples constitutes a distinct and separate sale. [984 F H 
985 B-GJ 
' 
' 
Fecitt v. Walsh [1891] 2 Q.B. 304, applied . 
. (b) In Shankar }Al Aga~walla v. Corporation of Calcutta, A.I.R. 1962 Cal. 
6H, the 3 prosecutions agamst the ace.used were not for three different trans· 
actions of sale constituted by taking samples from three tins of ghee, but were 
for three acts of st9ri11g adulterated ghee, and so the decbion is not relevant. 
But observations co'!tra therein that the taking of samples from different recep-
tacles at the. same time from the same p\ace for analysis, constitutes only one 
otrence, are mcorrect. [986 G, 987 A-DJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 138 
of 1971. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 
c: 
IJ 
E 
F 
G 
22nd March 1971 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision 
0 
No. 232 of 1969. 
"-
K. C. Kf!/ra, R. C. Verma and S. L. Aneja for the Appellant, 
982 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 2 s.c.R. 
A 
F. S. Nariman, B. P. Maheshwari, N. K. Jain and Suresh Sethi for 
Respondent No. 2. 
B 
c 
D 
G 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BHAGWATI, J.-This appeal, by special leave, raises a short 
and 
interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of the provi-
sions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 
The facts 
giving rise to the appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows. 
On 12th July, 1967, a raiding party headed by Dr. A. D. Kumar, 
the Assistant Health Officer of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and 
comprising inter alia Shanti Nath, Navnit Lal, H. R. Sood and H. K. 
Bhanot, Food Inspectors, intercepted a truck bearing No. DLL 1925 
near Chandni Chowk. Delhi at about 7 a.m. in the morning. 
The 
truck contained twenty-five to thirty cans of cow's milk which was be-
ing carried for sale by the appellant. 
The raiding party took the truck 
inside the .compound of the Municipal office and there, 
~amples • of 
cow's milk were taken from eight cans chosen at random by different 
Food Inspectors, one sample being drawn 
from each can. 
Each 
sample was divided into three parts and after carrying out the usual 
formalities, one part of each sample was sent to the Public Analyst for 
analysis. 
The result of the analysis was th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.