LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus BABURAO RAVAJI MHARULKAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•. ·
1053
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
v.
BABURAO RAVAJI MHARULK:AR & ORS.
26th October, 1984
(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SE'l AND E.S.VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.)
Deemed Adultration Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 Rule 5 read
with paragraph A.11.02.08 of Appendix B there to and sections 2 (ia) (i) and 2(ia)
(m) of the Prevention of Food A.duleration Act, 1954-The circumstance that the
standard of milk fat for buffalo milk is 5% should not render it impossible for Ice
cream to contain milk fat less than 10%lce cream contaitling than 10% must be
deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of Sectiolz 2(ia)(m) of the Prevention
of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 incurring liability under seCtion 16(1)(a} {ii) of the
said Act.
,
Based on the report or Public Analys"t Which showed that the sample of
ice cream purchased by the Food Inspector, 'E' Ward, Rajarampuri from the
shop of the 4th respondent firm, the partners of which were respondents 1 to 3,
contained 5.95% of milk fat. as against the minimum of 10% prescribed by
paragraph A. 1 J.02.08 of Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Rules 1955, all the respondents were brought to trial before- the Chief Judicial
Magistrate of Kohlapur. The learned Magistrate thought 'that it was impos-
sible to attain the standard of purity prescribed by the rules as ice cream was
but a preparation of milk and (the standard
1 of purity prescribed for
buffalo milk was but a minimum of 5% milk fat.
He was, therefore, of
the view that Rules ·5 read with paragraph A.11:02.08 of Ai)pendix B was
impossible of compliance and, therefore, bad in law and thus acquitted all the
respondents. On appeal by State, learned Single Judge of the High Court of
Bombay dismissed the appeal in //mine. Hence the State appeal under Art. 136 of
the Constitution.
AJJowing the appeal in part, the Court
HELD : 1 :1. The circumstance that the standard of milk fat for buffalo
milk is 5% should not render it impossible for ice cream to contain a minimum
per centage of 10 of milk fat. There are several ways by which the higher per ..
centage of milk fat in ice cream may be attained. The most elementary method
is to heat the milk sufficiently to reduce the per centage of water and increasC
the per centage of milk fat. Another obvious method is to add cream contain-
ing a high per centage of milk fat separately to the milk before making ice
cream out of it. [IOSSB-D]
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
• I : 2. Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration lRule! 1955 provides
II
•. ,..,...1
A
B
IOS4
SUPllEME COuRT REPORTS
[1985] i s.c.11..
that standard and quality of the vari~us articles of food specified in Appendix
B thereto are to be defined in that Appendix. Paragraph A.11.02.08 of Appendix
B prescribes a minimum standard of 10% milk fat in the case of ice cream,
kulfi and chocolate ice C(eam. ,Section 2 (ia) (m) provides that an article of
food sha11 be deemed to be. adulterated if the quality or purity of article falls
below the prescribed standard but which does not render it injurious to health.
Therefore, the ice cream sold by the first respondent was adulterated within the
meaning of section 2(ia) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955.
[1055D-GJ
c
1 : 3. In the circumstanCe, the 1st and the 4th respondents are, therefore,
liable to be convicted under section J6(1)(a)(ii) of the Food Adulteration Act
while respondents 2 and 3 are entitled to acquittal as there is nothing to indicate
that they were in charge of or were in any way responsible for the conduct of
the business of the firm. [1055G·H, !056AJ
1 : 4.
As to sentence, in view of the fact that the offence was committed
quite some years ago, the offence happens to be the first offence and the Supreme
Court was now interfering with an order of acquittal, the ends of justice will be
met by th6 imposition of the minimum sentence of three months prescribed by
the proviso section 16(1) of the Act and a fine of Rs. 2,000 each. [1056B·CJ
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Criminal Appeal
No. 460 of 1984.
Appeal by Speci~l leave from the Judgment and Order dated
E
the 14th September, 1982 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 440 of 1982
M.N. Shroff for the AppeJlant.
V.S. Desai, and Mrs. J.S. Wad for the Respondent.
F
The Judgement of the Court as delivered by
G
H
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Special Leave garnted.
The Food Inspector, 'E' Ward, Rajarampuri, purchased a
sample of icExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.