PREM BALLAR & ANR versus THE STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 592 · Decided: 15-09-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
592 
PREM BALLAR & ANR 
v. 
THE STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) 
September 15. 1976 
[P. N. BHAGWATI AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au, JJ.T 
Preventiol! of Food Ad11/teratio11 Act 1954-Sec. 16(1 )(a) (i)-2(1 )---2(1) (cl 
--2(1) (i)-2(1) (l)-Preve11tio11 of Food Ad11lteration Rules-R11/es 23-28 and 
29-Can col!viction be based 011 sole testimony of a Food Inspector-Can an 
article fall under c/a11se (j) & (I) of Sec. 2(i)-Are they 11111t11a/ly cxclusfre or 
overlappi11g-Whe11 mies are silent abo11t colouring material can 11se of dye be 
punished-Do provisions of probation of offe11der.1· Act apply to o(fenccs under 
the prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 
The second appellant was the owner of a grocery shop and the first appel-
lant was his salesman in the shop. Food Inspector Bhanot purchased a sample 
from appellant No. 1 of mustard oil after complying with the formalities pres-
cribed by the Act. 
The Public Analyst reported that the sample was mis-
branded as it was of !in-seed oil and it was adulterated due to the presence of 
artificial dye. the appellants were charge-sheeted under section 16( 1 )(a ){i). 
The learned Magistrate convicted the appellants and sentenced them to suffer 
rigorous imprisonment for 9 months. 
On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction but reduced 
the sentence from 9 months to 6 months. The High Court, in revision upheld 
the decision of the Sessions Judge. 
On appeal of Special Leave the appellants wntended : 
1. The conviction was bad since it rested solely on the evidence of Food 
Inspector Bhanot. 
2. The offence committed by the appellants on the opinion of the Public 
Analyst fell under section 16(1 )(a)(i) read with clause (1) of section 
2 (i) and, therefore, the Court had discretion under the proviso to 
section 16 (1) to impose a lesser sentence than the minimum of 6 
months. 
3. In alny event, the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, 
should be given to the appellants. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : l. There is no rule of law that conviction cannot be based on the 
sole testimony of. a Food Inspector. It is only out of a sense of caution that the 
courts insist that the testimony of a Food Inspector should be corroborated by 
some independent witnesi:. 
This is a necessary caution which has to be borne 
in mind because the Food Inspector may in a sense be regarded as an interested 
witness. But this caution is a rule of prudence and not a rule of law. If it were 
otherwise it would be possible for many guilty persons to escape punishment by 
resorting to the device of bribing Panch witnesses. 
In the present case, the 
sample was taken in the presence of witness Krishan Datt Sharma who has turned 
hostile. 
His explanation is palpably dishonest and cannot be ac<:epted. There 
is also the evidence of another Food Inspector Bhatnagar. The Courts below 
accepted their evidence and there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent 
view taken by the courts belo;;. '[595A-Gl 
2. Section 2( 1) defines "Adulterated" and says that an article of food shall 
be deemed to be adulterated if the article falls within the ·description given in· 
any of the succeeding cla'l!ses (a) to (I). Clause (j) provides that an article 
of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if any colouring matter other than· 
._ 
> 
/ 
I-
:: 
.,. 
PREM BALLAS V. DELHI STATE (Bhagwati, J.) 
593 
that prescribed in respect thereof and in amounts not within the prescribed 
A 
limits of variability is present in the srticle. 
Clause (1) deems an article of 
food to be adulterated if the quality or purity of the article falls below the 
prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities which are 
in 
excess of the prescribed limits of variability. 
[596C-D] 
3. It is wrong to contend that if an article falls within clause (I) it cannot 
fall under clause (j) or any other clause. Different clauses of section 2(i) are 
not mutually exclusive; they, overlap one another and it is quite possible that 
B 
an article of food may be found adulterated under two or more c1auscs of se.c-
tion 2(i). [597A-CJ 
4. The report of !)le public analyst showed that the linseed oil contained 
artificial dye and this was clearly prohibited under rule 23. The only artificial 
dyes which were permitted to be used in food were those set out in rule 28 and 
Rule 29. prohibited the use of permitted coal tar dyes in or upon any articles 
of food other than those ennmerated in that

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