RUPAK KUMAR versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 3 S.C.R. 568 · Decided: 04-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 568 
RUPAK KUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 541-542 of 2014) 
MARCH 04, 2014 
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ. 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: s.482 -
C Quashing of criminal proceedings - Food inspector found the 
articles stored for consumption of prisoners in the jail 
premises to be adulterated -
Case registered against the 
Superintendent of Jail uls.16(1)(a) of Prevention of Food 
Adulteration Act, 1954 - Petition for quashing of issuance of 
D summons - High Court dismissed the petition - Held: s. 7 
prohibits a person to manufacture for sale or store, sell or 
distribute any adulterated food - Contravention of s. 7 by any 
person is punishable u/s. 16 - Expression 'store' as used in s. 7 
and s. 16 means storage of adulterated article of food for sale 
E - Storage of adulterated article other than for sale does not 
come within the mischief of s. 16 of the Act - Therefore, 
criminal proceedings quashed - Prevention of Food 
Adulteration Act, 1954 - s.16. 
The appellant was posted as Superintendent of 
F District Jail. Food Inspector visited the jail premises and 
collected samples of various materials including Haldi and 
Rice. Those articles were stored for consumption of the 
prisoners. The Public Analyst held these samples to be 
adulterated. A case was registered against the appellant 
G under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration 
Act, 1954. The Magistrate took cognizance of offence 
under Section 16(1 )(a) of the Act and directed issuance 
of process. The revision petitions thereagainst were 
dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant filed applications 
H 
568 
RUPAK KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 
569 
under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings. 
A 
The High Court dismissed the applications. Hence, the 
instant appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 7 of the Prevention of Food 
B 
Adulteration Act, 1954 prohibits a person to 'manufacture 
for sale' or 'store' or 'sell' or 'distribute', inter alia, any 
adulterated food. Contravention of Section 7 by any 
person is punishable under Section 16 of the Act. Section 
10 of the Act talks about the power of Food Inspector and 
C 
under this Section, he is empowered to take sample of 
any article of food from any person selling such article. A 
conjoint reading of provisions makes it clear that the Food 
Inspector has the power to take sample of any article of 
food from any person selling such article under sub-
D 
section (1) whereas sub-section (2) confers on him the 
power to enter and inspect any place where any article of 
. food is manufactured, stored or exposed for sale and take 
samples of such articles of food for analysis. Section 16 
provides for penalties. According to section 16(1), 'any 
E 
person, who by himself or by any other person on his 
behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells any 
adulterated article is liable to be punished. In the instant 
case, according to the prosecution, the appellant, a 
Superintendent of Jail, had stored Rice and Haldi and, 
F 
therefore, his act comes within the mischief of Section 7 
and 16 of the Act. In view of the said, what needs to be 
decided is as to whether the expression 'store' as used in 
Section 7 and Section 16 of the Act would mean storage 
simplicitor or storage for sale. Conjoint reading of Section 
G 
7, Section 10 and Section 16 of the Act shows that the Act 
is intended to prohibit and penalise the sale of any 
adulterated article of food. The term 'store' shall take 
colour from the context and the collocation in which it 
occurs in Section 7 and 16 of the Act. Applying the 
H 
570 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 
A aforesaid principle, 'storage' of an adulterated article of 
food other than for sale does not come within the mischief 
of Section 16 of the Act. [Para 6, 7, 9) [572-H; 573-A-B; 57 4-
8-D, H; 575-A-D] 
8 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Laxmi Narain Tandon, 
(1976) 1 sec 546 - relied on. 
2. In the case in hand, it is not the allegation that the 
appellant had stored adulterated food article (Haldi and 
Rice) for sale. The allegations made did not constitute any 
C offence and, hence, the prosecution of the appellant for 
an offence under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act would be an 
abuse of the process of the Court. The appellant's 
prosecution in both the cases is quashed. [Para 10, 11) 
[575-G-H; 576-A-B] 
D 
Case Law Reference: 
(1976) 1 sec 546 
relie

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