STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) versus PURAN MAL

Citation: [1985] 3 S.C.R. 464 · Decided: 26-03-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. VARADARAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
• 
c 
D 
STA TE (DELHI ADMINIS'tRA tJON) 
v. 
PURANMAL 
March 26, I 985 
(A. VARADAl\A.IAN AND l'lANGANATH MISRA, JJ.] 
., 
Prtvt•lion of Food Adulteration Act_, 1954-S.2( J) (/)-Living worms 
found in the s•mplt-Distinction between, a worm and an 'ins-ect'-Pub/ic 
Analyst's report silent-Whether the food mmple was WOTln-Infesttd or insect 
-Infested or adulterated or unifit for human consumption-Sample-If could 
be termed "adulterated." 
Words and Phrases-"Or is otherwise unfit for human consumption" 
appearifllf i• s. 2(1) (!)-Meaning of. 
Section 2(1) (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 
Provides that an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if the article 
E 
consists wholly or ia part of any filthy, putrid, disgusting, rotten, decomposed 
or diseased animal· or vegetable substance or is insect-infested Qr is otherwise 
unfit for human consumption. 
p 
ff 
The respondent was prosecuted for an offence under section 7 read with 
section 16 of the Act. 
The prosecution case was that a ·sample of lat mirchi 
powder wai taken from the aroccry shop of the respondent. 
On an analysis 
by the Public Analyst it was found that the sample contained nine livine meal 
worms. 
Tber11 was no other evidence in support of the case of the prosecution 
. ·.that the tat m.1;:: chi powder w~ aduiterated. 
The learned Magistrate found 
that tho prosecution bad failed to prove that the Jal mirchi powder was adulte· 
rated and acquitted the respondent. 
The High Court dismissed the Crimillal 
Revision Petitioa filed by the appellant State in limine. 
Dismissin& the appeal by the State, 
HELD.: 
(1) 
The words 'worm', 'infest' and 'insect' are defined in 
Webster's New World Dictionary (1962 Edition). 'Worm• means "any of many 
IODI slender soft-bodied crccpina animals, some SCKfllCntcd, that live by burro-
• 
I 
,. 'I , 
' 
win& underaround or as parasites, as the earth-worm, tapeworm, 
n1est 
means "to overrun or inhabit in large numbers, usually so as to be harmful or 
·~. 
• 
• 
blii.Hl Ai>Mt. v. t>liRAN MAt. 
bothetsorile, swarm in or about. 
'Insect' means "My of a 1arge groUp 
1of small 
invertebrate animals characterized, in the adult state, by division of the body 
into head, thorax, and abdomen, three pairs of membranous winas: beetles, 
bees, :flies, wasps, mosquitoes, etc. are insects.'' 
The same meanin& is ai,ven of 
the above three words in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. Therefore, it is not 
possible to bold that a worm and an insect are the same. 
[467C-E] 
, 
·'A 
M/• Narbklallf' Roller Flour Mills and ancther v. The Corporatioo of 
c)l 
Ca/cul/a, 1973 (Prevention of Food Adultetation Cases) 257, referred to: 
· 
. 
I 
o 
(2) 
Even if the nine worms found by the P~blic Analyst in the sample 
are cOnsidered to be insects, the certificate of the Public Analyst· does- not 
support the case of the prosecution that the lat mirchi powder was adulterated, 
for the Public Analyst has not expressed his opinion that the Jal mirchi powder 
was either worm-infested or insect-infested or that on account of the pfesence 
of the meal worms the sample was unfit for ~buman ..consumption. 
TherefOte, 
the prosecution has not established by any satisfactory evidence the requirement 
of Section 2(1) (f) of the Act. 
Consequently no interference is called for with 
the Judgment of th .. High Court. 
[473G-H) 
·-
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo Mal, [1976] 2 SCR ·1., 
Municipal Corporation a/Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia, [1980) 1 SCR 910, held 
inapplicable. 
Per Varadarajan J. 
No opinion is expressed as to which of the two views expressed· in 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo Mal, [1976] 2 $.C.R. l, .and 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia, [1980) 1 S.C.R,910 is 
correct, since this Bench also is of equal strength. 
Moreover, it is not neces-
sary to do so having regard to the facts of the present case. 
[473F] 
Per Ranganath Misra J. (concurring in the conclUsion) 
Tlie true meaning of section 2(1) (f) has been brouaht out in. µunicipa/ 
Corporal/on of Delhi v. Tek Chand 8hatia, [1980) 1 .SCR 910 and the concl .. ion 
that. 'it would not be necessary in such a case to prove further thai ··the article 
of food was unfit for human consumption' is a correct staiement of th• law . 
In the instant case, the prosecution evidence is inadequate to warrant 
interference. 
[474B-C] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appe~I No. 539 
of 1984 
From the judament and order date4 

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