LexSTATE OF ORISSA versus K. RAJESHWAR RAO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF ORISSA
v ..
K.RAJESHW AR RAO
NOVEMBER 14, 1991
[KULDIP SINGH AND K.RAMASWAMY, JJ.]
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Sections 16(1) (a)(i),
7(1) -Offence under-Object and purpose of legislation-Proof of of-
fence- Essential ingredient-Prosecution's duty under indicated.
A
B
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954-Sections l 6(l)(a) (i),
C
7(1) -Offences under-Sale of adulterated food article by son of the
owner-Prosecution-Validity of
'
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Section 20-Sanction~
Importance of--Criteria in issuing sanction.
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Section 20--"Person"
"himself or any person on his behalf"--Construction-Owner's son comes
under.
Prevention of Food
Adulteration
Act,
1954-Section
D
2(ia)-"Adulterated"--Construction-To be construed widely.
E
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Sections l 6(1)(a)(i), 7(1)
-Offence committed under-Sentence-Lapse of 15 years from the date
of offence-Held fine of Rs. 500 sufficient.
On 13.3.1976, it was found that the respondent sold adulter-
F
ated cumin(Jira). The Food Inspector purchased the Jira under the
provisions of the Act and on analysis the Public Analyst found that
it was adulterated.
The respondent was charged u/s.16(1)(a)(i) read with section
7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
G
The Trial Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that
his father was the owner of the shop and assuming that if that facll
had been brought to the notice of the sanctioning authority u/s; 20
of the Act, it would not have permitted to prosecute the respondent,
the son of the owner of the shop and relying on the Jagannath Sahu :s
H ··
251
252
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1991] SUPP. 2 S.<:.R.
A
case (1973)(2) Cutcack Weekly Reporter, 1536.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
The High Court on appeal confirmed the ac_quittal order of the
trial court.
On the question, whether it was necessary that the respondent
should be the owner of the shop for being prosecuted for the of-
fences u/s. 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7(1) of the Act, allowing the
appeal filed by the State, this Court,
HELD:
1. The Act is a welfare legislation to prevent health
hazards by consuming adulterated food. The mens rea is· not an .
essential ingredient. It is a social evil and the Act prohibits com-
mission of the offences under the Act. The essential ingredient is
sale to the purchaser by the vendor. It is not material to establish
the capacity of the person vis-a-vis the owner of the shop to prove
his authority to sell the adulterated food exposed for sale in the
shop. It is enough for the prosecution to establish that the person,
who sold the adulterated article of food had sold it to the purchaser
(including the Food Inspector ) and that Food Inspector purchased·
the same in strict compliance with the provisions of the Act. (256 B-
C]
2. The sanctioning authority has to consider the material placed
before it whether the offence of adulteration of food was committed
and punishable under the Act. Once that satisfaction is reached
and the authority is competent to grant the sanction, the sanction is
valid. It is not necessary for the sanctioning authority to consider
that the person sold is the owner, servant, agent or partner or rela-
tive of the owner or was duly authorised in this behalf. (256 C-D]
3. Grant of sanction to prosecute for an offence under the
Act is a condition precedent. If no valid sanction was granted by
the authority, certainly the accused is entitled to the benefit of statutory
infraction, though it is technical and be acquitted of the offence.
The relevant criteria under section 20(1) is the competence of the
officer to grant the sanction for the offence. It does not postulate
whether the person sold should be the owner or a servant or a
person on behalf of the owner (son of the owner). {255 A)
4,' No 'person' shall himself or any person on his behalf manu-
facture for sale, or store or sell or distribute any adulterated food
etc. The phrase "himself or any person on his behalf" obviously
included any other person like servant, son, father or agent irre-
STATE v. RAJESHWAR RAO [RAMASWAMY, I.]
253
spective of the relationship legal or jural etc. The person so sold' A
during the course of business either the owner or the person that
sold the adulterated food or article of food or both are liable to
proseitution. [255 B-C)
5. If the article sold bExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.