LexSTATE OF KERALA ETC. ETC. versus ALASERRY MOHAMMED ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
820
SuPREME
COURT
REPORTS
[1978] 2 S-C·R
A
STATE OF KERALA ETC. ETC.
v.
ALASERRY MOHAMMED ETC. ETC.
February 10, 1978
B
[M. H. BEG, C. J., Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, N. L. UNTWALIA,
c
D
E
F
G
H
P. S. KAILASAM AND V. 0. TULZAPURKAR, JJ.]
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, s. 11 and Prevention of Food
Adulteration Rules, 1955, rule 22 object of the Act and the Rule.
\
Prevenn'on of Adulteration Rules, 1955 framed under the
Prevention of
Adulteration Act, 1954, rule 22-Whether the rule is directory or mandatory-
Whether the non-compliance ·with the requirelnent of rule·zz vitiates a trial or
the conviction recorded under s. 16(1)(a)(ii).
Practice and Procedure-Interference with the orders of acquittal based on
the decision of the Suprenie Court .which has held the field for over 3 years,
u•hether pe1·rnissible in the interest of ;ustice.
Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 framed under
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 specifies the quantity of sample
of food to t1e sent to the Public Analyst or Directorate for analysis as the case
may be.
Items 1 to 22 gives a list of various articles of food and the residuary
item 23 includes all foods not specified in items 1 td, 22. In the last column of
the list, as against the quantity to be supplied, the heading is "Approximate
quantity to be supplied".
While considering the said provisions. in Raja! Das Guru Namal Pan1ana11i v.
The State of Maharashtra [1975]. 2 SCR 886=AIR 1975 SC 189 conviction
of the appellant was set aside by this c·ourt on the ground :
"'fhe Public Analyst did not have the quantities mentioned in the
Rules for analysis.
The <l•ppellant rightly contends that nO'n-compliance
~~
with the quantity to be supplied caused not only infraction of the pro~
visions but also injustice. The quantities mentioned are required for
correct analysis.
Shortage in quantity for analysis is not permitted
by the Statute."
Since under Article 141 of the Constitution, the above decision of the Supreme
Court is binding on all the High; Courts, following the abov~ vie,v in some
cases the l-ligh Court refused special leave against the order of
acquittal; in
others, some other grounds of attack on the order of conviction were available
but were neither gone into nor decided by the High Court; in some others
the High (':ourt recorded orders of acquittal; in some cases, the adulteration
was of a winor and technical character, although in some it was of, rather.
serious nature too and in some cases, decisions were given on the footing that
chillies powder is condiment and not spice.
Hence, the appeals by special
leave.
The appellants contended that the view in Pamanani's case was not correct
and needed further examination.
Dispe»>ing of the appeals by laying down the correct proposition of the law,
the Court,
HELD : (1) The report of the Analyst under s. 13 of the Prevention of
Food AduHeration Act, 1954 has got a great san~tity for protecting the general
public and their health against use and consumption of adulterated food.
On
the other hand, it has great significance and importanc~ for t~e protection of a
citizen, as he can be convicted under the Act only on its basis, under s. 16(1) '
(
..
KERALA v. ALASERRY (Untwalia, !.)
821
(a) (ii) of the Act, because unless and until the report of the Public Analyst is
A
demolished shaken or becomes doubtful, it is final and conclusive evidence of the
facts stated therein, under s. 13(5) of the Ac~ [825 D·E]
(2) The use of the word 'shall' in sub-s. (3) of s. 11 and in Rule 22 would
on its face, indicate that an imperativ~ duty has been cast upon the Food
fnspcctor to send a sample in accordance with the prescribed rules. The mere
. use of the word 'shall' does not invariably lead to this result. The whole pur-
pose and the context of the provisions has to be kept in view for deciding the
issue.
[827 D·E]
B
(3) The purpose of prescribing more than double the quantity required for
analysis is that a Food Inspector while taking a sample of food for analysis in
accordance with s. 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. is not aware
at the threshold whether the person from \\'horn the sample has been taken
would decline to accept one of the three parts. It is to guard against such an
eventuality that the quantity prescribed is more than double because if the per-
son declines to accept one part of the sample then, as meExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.