RAJAL DAS GURU NAMAL PAMANANI versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 886 · Decided: 03-12-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

'886 
RAJAL DAS GURU NAMAL PAMANANI 
THE STATE OF. MAHARASHTRA 
December 3, 1974 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, H. R. KHANNA AND 
P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.J 
B 
Ptevenlion of' Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 19(2)-WarrantY-Pte· 
vemion of Food Adulteratic11 Rules, Rule 22-Quantity of samples prescribed 
whether mam/awry-N on·comp/iance with tile qualllitv f.nlitlcs the or.cured to he 
.acquitltd. 
The appellant, a grocer, sold compounded asafoetida in sealed tins recei'Ved 
from a licenced manufacturer. The appellant stored it properly and sold it in the 
same s!ate as he purchased it. The Food Inspector took sample of 100 sms., 
instead of 200 gms. as provided by rule 22. .On 1111alysis it was found 
that 
.alcoholic content was less than the minimum prescribed and therefore, 
the 
compounded asafoetida was adulterated. 
The Trial Court acquitted the appellant. 
On a-ppeal by I.he State. the Hi'gh 
·Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisoom1:nt 
for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 /·. 
On appeal to this Court the appellant contended that he was protected by 
section 19(2)(a)(i) because he purchased the compounded asafoetida fron:i a 
duly· licensed IJianufa:turer and sold it in the same state as he purchased it. The 
·appellant contended that the words "written .warranty in the prescribed form" 
attached only t1) section 19(2)(a)(ii) and nots. 19(2)(a) (i). The appellant also 
contended that since imtead of 200 gms. 
as reql!ired by rule 22 the Food Ins· 
·pector took only 100 gms, as the sample he was entitled to be acquitted. 
HELD: (i) It follows from rule 12A that the manufacturer has to print a 
1abel containin~ a warranty. Warranty is required by cases covered under sec· 
·tion 19(2){a) ( i) and 19(2) (a)(ii). Otherwise adulterated aoods could be sold 
·with impunity. These salutary provisions are designed for the health of the 
·nation. No laxity should be permitted. 
[Si89A~DJ 
Andlira Pradesh Grain & Seed Merchant/ Association etc. etc. v. Union of 
//ndia & Anr, [1971] I S.C.R. 166. explained. 
(ii) The Public Analyst did not have the quantities mentioned in the rules for 
·analysis. The non-compliance with the quantity to be supplied caused not only 
infraction of the provisions but also injustice. The shortage in quantity for 
·analysis is not permitted by the statute. The High Court '\'BS in error in con· 
"Victing the appellant on analysis which was not in compliance with the provisions 
.of the Statute. [889F-HJ 
CRlMJNA.'L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals No5. 6 to 
'9 of. 1971. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment & Order dated 17th 
December, 1970 of the Bombay High Court in Crl. as Nos. 709, 711-,. 
713 of 1969. 
· 
P. H. Parekh, S. Bhandare and M"'11ju Jetley, for the appellant. 
.H. R. Khanna and M. N. Shroff, for the respondent 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
B 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
F 
G 
H 
R, G. PAMANAN~ V; MAHARASHTRA (Ray, C./.) 
887 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAY, C.J. These appeals by special leave turn on the interpreta-
tion of section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 
hereinafter referred to as the Act. 
The appellant was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate. The High 
Court at Bombay reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant 
under section 16( l)(a) (ii) of the Act. 
· Section 16(1) (a) (ii) states that if any person inter alia sells or 
distributes any article of food in contravention of any of the provisions 
of the Act or of any rule made thereunder he .shall, in addition to the 
penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of section 6, _:®._ 
pµnishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be Jess than 
six months but which may extend to six years, and wit):l fine. which 
shall not be· less than one thousand rupees. 
The appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 
one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-
. The appellant is a grocer. He sells compounded asafoetida. He 
purchased compounded · asafoetida in sealed tins from the New India 
Hing .Supplying Company. Bombay. In August, 1967, the Food Ins-
pector purchased 300 grams of asafoetida for the purp0se Of analysis. 
The Food Inspector made three packets of 100 grams each and sent 
. one Of the packets to the Public Analyst at Poona. The report of the 
Public Analyst was that the alcoholic extract content in the asafoetida 
was 3.77 per cent whereas 5 per cent was the required quantity under 
the Act. It

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