SAMBHU DAYAL versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 341 · Decided: 21-11-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.S. KAILASAM · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

... _. 
, .l. 
:341 
SAMBHU DAYAL 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
Ifovembu 21, 197g 
[P. S. KAILASAM AND A. D. KOSftAL, JJ.] 
Prei:t'ntion of ·Food Adulteration Act, 1950 Sections 8 and ' as amended by 
the Amcndinj.' A ct 49 of 1964---{,'onstruction of-Presumption of adulteration 
of milk in respect of samples analysed after a fixed period. 
The appelhu1t was convicted under section 8 read with !ection 16 of the 
A 
Pre•1ention of Food Adulteration Act by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalaun 
C 
and sentenced to six months rigoroui imprisonment, the minimum sentence 
awardable under the P.0.F.A. 1950. In appeal the Ses!iona Court reversed it, 
but in further appeal by the State against his acquitti and reversal of the 
trial court decision, the High Court of Allahabad set aaide the Session's orders 
and restored that of the trial court. 
J)ismissin§: the appeal by special leave the Cou1i. 
D 
HELD : l. Sectinns 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration ,\ct, 
1950 as amended by sectio~ 5 of the Amending Act 49 of 1964 cannot be 
read as repealing the old sections and empowering the Central Government or 
the State Government to appoint the Public Analyst or the 
Food Inspector 
after the coming into force of the amendini' Act, implying that 
any 
prior 
appointment ()f a Public Analyst or Food Inspector itood repc.i.led. 
i345A] 
E 
2. Whether the notifications of the Government in 
196~ appointing 
the 
Public Analyst and the Food Inspector with retrospectiTc effect from March 
'5 ~~.re valid oi- not need not be looked into because bci'.1&" an an1endmem Act, 
the appointment of the Public Analyst and the Food Jaspector made by the 
itatc G0Yernn1cnt continued to bo •alid. 
[3'45B~C] 
3. The ~mended sections g and ' do not in any way repeal sections 8 and 
' as they originaIIy stood. 
As to the effect of the amendment the language 
of the amending sections will have to be examined to find out whether the 
original conditions were intended to be repealed. The amendini: 
provisions 
•hould bl! held as part of the original statute. [345D-E] 
4. Whenever the amended section has to be applied subsequent to the date 
of the an1endment, the unamended provisions of the Act have to be 
read 
along with the amended provisions as though they are part of it. 
Reading the 
amended 
section, 
it 
is 
clear that 
there 
is 
no prov1s1on, express or 
implied. repealing the existing provisions or the rules mhde thereunder. The 
section \.Vil1 have to be construed as being in addition to what had already 
existed. 
The effect will be that the power of the State Government which 
already existed under the unamended section and the 
appointments 
made 
therennc1rr \vill h~ preserved and the action taken under the atnendcd ~e~~tions 
will be in addition to the powers of the State Government and the appoint· 
ments which hod already been made. 
[345F-G] 
F 
G 
H 
--.-: -
I 
• 
• 
342 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979] 2 s.c.n. 
A 
Nagar Mahapalika. Lucknaw v. Ram Dhani, A.I.R. 1971 All. 53 approv-
B 
c 
D 
ed. 
5. The contention that the analysis of the milk after 44 days must yield 
to an adverse inference against the State as to adulterntion canuot be accepte(l. 
[346A] 
In the present case there is evidence of the Food Inspector that he added 
formalin as a preservative and the report of the Public Analyst that no change 
had taken pln<:e in the constituents of milk which would have interfered with 
the analysis. This statement of the analyst was not challeng~d in any of the 
courts below. Apart from the statement of the Analyst not 
having 
been 
questioned, in this case it is admitted that formnlin was added to the 
milk. 
by the Food InsPector. 
The Food Inspector added 16 drops of formalin in 
each of the bottlc;.s and had them sealed properly. 
Rule 20 of the Pre'fention 
of Food i\dulleration Rules requires that in the case of n1ilk, cream, Da.hi, 
Khoa and Gur a preservative known li5 ''formalin", that is to say, a liquid 
containing about 40 per cent of 'formaldehyde' in aqueous solution in the 
proportion of 0.1 ml. (two drops) for 25 ml. or 25 grnms shall be added. 
There is also the clear evidence of Public Analyst that no change had tat.en 
place in the constituents of milk which would interfere \Vith the analyshi. 
[3460-G, 347Al 
Babboo v. State, A.LR. 1970 All 122; approved. 
Dattappa Afahadappa v. Secy., Municipal Committee, Baldar.a, A.I.I... 1951 
N<lg. 191 referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 13

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