PYARALI K. TEJANI versus MAHADEO RAMCHANDRA DANGE AND OTHERS

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 154 · Decided: 31-10-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

154 
PYARALI K. TEJANI 
v. 
MAHADEO RAM CHANDRA DAN GE AND OTHERS 
October 31, 1973. 
fA. N. RAY, C.J:, D. G. PALEKAR, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. N. 
. 
BHAGWATI AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.j . 
/ 
PreVPhtion nf Food Adulteration Act 
195~Rules 44(g) and 47-Sale of 
.supari with 
.s<~ccharin and cyclamate-Co11s1icuionali1y of the Rules and nL!e 
1nakinf( power-Suvari if fnod-GuideUnes in sentencjng~Applicability of Pro• 
bationers Offenders Act. 1947. 
. 
The appellant/petitioner. a dealer in scen~ed supJ.ri, was charged. with the 
offence of having !iold and retained for selling scented supari with &accharin 
and cvdamate, prohibited artificial sweeteners. in contravention of S. ?(i)(ii) 
and rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and thereby having 
.commit!ed an offer..:e punishable under· section 16(1)(z:)(i) of the Act. 
The 
~fagistrate convicted the accused and imposed a fine of only l~s. -100/·. On· 
revision tb:: liigh Court enhanced the punishment to the statutory minimum of 
six months imprisonment ard one thousa·nd rupees fine. 
The rules ~·hich \.Vere 
extant it the time of the alleged offence in January 1971 were rules 44(£) and 
47 as redrafted by the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Third Amendment) 
Rules 1968 which prohibited the two sweeteners as additives to supari. Jn 
October 1972, a circular was: issu·!d by the fl..1un!cipal Corporation of Greater 
Ilombay that the Central Commiti.ee for Food Standards had accepted the recum· 
mendation of i~s Sub·Committee thz:t '3accharin may be permitted to be us~d' in 
scented S:upari. 
Jn appeal of this Court the appeliant 
admitted 
the 
sale 
as also th.! presenc:! of saccha:in and cyclam;i.te in the supari sample. 
But he 
urged that s:.:!ion 23(i)(b) of the Act which emoowered the frz..mir:.~ of rules 
was bad, because, the stz.:tute Jaid down no policy, prir..;:iples or guidelines 
regarding th·! articles of food for which standards are to be prescribed, that 
supari is noti an a·r!icle of food and. as su:h, the admixture of any sweetener 
cannot altract the per.11 provisions; that the dealer believed in good.fa-ith that 
.there was no cyclamate in the substance sold induced by the _\varranty and did 
not know that saccharin was contraband, that neither saccharin nor cyclamate is 
bio-chemical risk. ~nd i;;o a blanket ban on their use is an unconstitutional restric-
tion on !he f:eedom of trade guaranteed in a:rticle 19; that there is discrimina-
tion against supari vis.a-v.!s carbonated waters \\'-herein -the use of :roaccharin is 
permitted under ml•:: 47; and that in any event the Probation of Offenders Act 
should have been applied. 
Dismissing the appeal and the writ petition·. 
HELD: (i) The· contravention of s. 7· read with rr. 44{g) and 47 being 
pla·inly p:oved the offence falls not under sub·s. (i) but sub-sec. (v) 
None Of 
the many alternatives in s. 2(i) applies beca-11~ there is neither avcrmer..t nor 
proof that the sweeteners in Question are injurious_ to health and the other cub· 
clause ·Cannot be attracted. 
[159G] 
(ii) The naked power submissioi:. is demolished by the guidelines in1plicit 
ir:. the statute, by the committ~e built in•o the system, by the specifications con-
tained in the rule makini? provisions and by the safeguard of laying the rules 
before the House. [lblH] 
(iii) Supari is food within_ the meaning of s. 2(v) of tho: ·Act. The Ac~ 
define-. 'food' very widely as covering any article used as food and every com-
ponent which enters into it and even flavouring matter <!nd condiments. [162E] 
, 
(iv) Jn food- offenceS strict liability- fa the rule. 'Not-hine: more than actu3 
reur is needed where regulation cif private activity in vulnerable areas like- public 
health is intended. 
Social defence reasonably overpowers individual freedom 
to ir.:uwe, in special situ_ations of strict-Iiabili•y. 
Section 7 casts an absolute 
obligation regardless of scienter, bad faith and niens 1·ea. 
[163B] 
....... 
A 
I 
, 
B 
• 
c 
D 
... 
F 
G 
.. 
• 
II 
-.~ 
.A 
,. 
~ 
• 
B 
r· 
' 
;:. 
c 
.. 
D 
.E 
F 
• 
-G 
p.·K. TEJANI v. M. R. DANGE "(Krishna Iyer, I.) 
J 5·S: 
~fcLead v. Buchanan, [1940] 2 A.E.R..1 179 at 186 (H.L) Andhra Pradesh· 
Grain 
& Se.:d Merchants Association v. Union of India, [1971] 1 S.C.R. 166· 
American J1irisprudence 2d. Vol. 35, p. 864, referred to. 
(iv)·It is not the judicial fullction to entef th:: thick2t of research contro'--
·versy or scientific dispute where Parliament has entrusted the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.