LexSHAH ASHU JAIWANT versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B ' - _, l c I) E F G \ H SHAH ASHLI JAIWANT STATE OF MAHARASHTRA August 18, 1975 [M. H. BEG, P. N. BHAGWATI AND R. S. SARKAR!,\, J.J.] 327 Preve111io11 of Food Ad11lteratio11 Act 1964-Sec. 2(1) (f) 7(i) 16(i)(a)~ Food wlierlu·r nuJst be for h111nan co11sun1ptio11-Nature of proof about food being for h11111a11 consun1ptio11~Afcns rea whether 11eccssary-I'rese11ce of Ille lt'itness. The appellant \V<is charged un<lcr. section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, for contravening section 2( l) (f) an<l 7 (i) of the said Act. The Food Inspector purchased black Tils from the appellant. P.W. I Tambe was unable to give either the name of the shop or approxin1ate date modity by the Food Inspector from the appellant and taking of the sample. Tambe \Vas . unable to give either the name of the shop or approx!.mate date or time of his visit. He was also unable to say .whether the shop of the appellant \Vas a foodgrains shop. 1'ambe \Vas unable to remember '\\''ho made the cash memo and whether any one signed the cash memo in his presence. Tan1bc could remember. nothing material and he \Vas non-committa1. rfhe .Food Inspector in his depos~tion stated that the signature of Tambe \Vas taken on the cash memo but not on the packets although in the examination in chief he stated that Tambe had signed the sealed packets also. The seals of the packets were found broken due to what the Inspector described as "handling". He admitted that no signafure of the witness was obtained on the counterfoil of the cash memo. He stated th.Itt black Tils can be used for human consumpticn and further stated that it is not correct to say that it is used only for Puj'a. The appellant denied the presence of Tambe and asserted that he clearly told the Food Inspector that the blnck Tils in his shop \Vere meant for Puja and not for human consumption. · The Pres!.dency MagislrJ.1..tc afler examining the whole evidence held that the version of the appellant that there was a talk about the actual purpose for 'vhich the Til seeds at his shoo were meant was more probable because it \vas supported by '"h~t the appellant had written on the cash men10 when he sold the Til seeds to the Food Inspector. The ~Iagistrate also held that the Analyst's. report sho\\'cd that the black Til seeds were full of cocoons visible to the naked eye and nobody could be expected to purchase them for consumption as food. However. the Jlvfagistrate held that the purpose for which the Til seeds were kept \Vas quite immaterial. The appellant \Vas convicted by the ~fagistrate and the conviction \Vas con· firmed by High Court. On appeal to this Court by Special Leave it was con- tended by the appellant. ( ll That black Tils were sold to the Food Inspector specifically for the purpose of Puja and that he was told by the appellant that these were not meant for human r:onsumption. - (2) It is the duty of the prosecution to prove bc}tond reasonable doubt that what was sold was food. The whole object of the Act is to prevent adulteration of food meant for human consumption. (3) It is a matter of common kno\vledge that black Til seeds arc not - used as food. HELD : Allowing the appeal : l: It is tn1e t~at niens rea in the ordinary o~ usual sense of this word is not required for proving an offence defined by section 7 of the Act. Nevertheless, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that what v;as stored or sold was food. The use of the article sold was not entirely irrelevant. In many cases, it can be presumed fron1 the nature of the article itself or the circumstances 328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1976] 1 S.C.R. or rnanneJ of offering it for sale whether lhc food was for.human consumption. :\ Where circumstances raise a genuine doubt on the auestion \Vhether \Vhat was kept by a seller was food at all this mu'it be resolved by evidence in the case. \Vhcre section 7 orohibits manufacture, sale or storage or d'.stribution of certain types of food, it necessarily denotes articles intended (or human consumption as food. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the article \vhich is the .subject matter of an offence is ordinarily used for human consumption as food whenever re<1sonable doubts arise on this question. It is self-evident that certain articles such as milk, or bread or butter or foodgrains are meant for human B consumption as food. These are matters of commo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.