STATE OF PUNJAB versus DEVINDER KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 714 · Decided: 07-04-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

c 
E 
F 
'114 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
DEVJNDER KUMAR & ORS. 
April 7, 1983. 
(E.S. VEl'IKATARAM!AH AND AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.J 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954--Ss. 7(i), 11 (1) (b), Prevention 
of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955-Rules 22 and 22-A--Sample taken after opening 
sealed container having larger quantity than re;/uired·--lf valid. 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Ss. 19 (2) and 20-A-Whether 
dealer and manufacturer can be jointly tried with vendor. 
Criminal Procedure Code-S. 482-Scope of. 
lnterpretation~Rule of. 
On a complaiot by the Food Inspector, who had purchased 1.5 k.g. of 
vanaspati as sample after opening one sealed tin of 16.5 k.g. out of ZO such 
tins- kept by the vendor for sale, criminal proceedings were instituted against the 
vendor, the dealer and the manufacturer of vanaspati for violation of s.7 (i) of 
the Prevention of Food Adlllteration Act, 1954 on the ground that on analysis 
the vanaspati did not satisfy the prescribed standard. The facts of -all these 
cas~s are more or less the same. When the process was issued, the dealer and 
the manufacturer filed petitions in the fligh Court contending: (1) as the 
complainant had taken the sample after opening a sealed tin, he had violated 
r.22-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, (2) under s. 20-A 
of the Act the dealer or a manufact'urer could be proceeded against only after 
the vendor had set up a successful defence as contemplated under s. 19(2) and 
therefore their prosecution along with the vendor was illegal. 
The High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the proceedings on the 
ground that where the food was in sealed containers having identical lable 
declaration, the entire contents of one or mOre of such containers as may be 
required to satisfy the qnantity prescribed in r. 22 should be taken as a part of 
G 
the scimple and since the sealed container had been opened to draw the sample 
the prosecution was not tenable. 
H 
Allowing the appeals, 
HELD : Rule 22-A states that where foo'd is sold or stocked for sale or 
for distribution in sealed containers having identical lable declaration, the 
contents of one or more of such containers as may be required to sathfy the 
quantity prescribed in r. 22 shall be treated to be a part of the sample. Ru_Ie 
72-A <;toes not ~tate that where a sealed container contains a quantity larger 
-
. 
• 
j 
• 
PUNJAB V. DBVINDER KUMAR 
715 
. than what is required for purpo'.es of S. 11 read with r. 22 !he sea]ed container 
as such should be taken as sample and that no sample can be taken after 
opening the sealed container. This rule is enacted apparently to get over the 
difficulty that may arise in taking sample and in dividing it into three parts as 
required by s. 11 (I) (b) Where such sealed container containing the food in 
question contians a quantity less than the required quantity to be taken as 
sample for purposes of s. 11 read with r. 22. The matter is put beyond doubt 
by r. 22·B which, however, only reaffirrrs the legal rosition existing before that 
rule came into force. Rule 22~A is oi1Iy a corollary to r. 22 which prescribes 
the quantity of sample tQ be sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The inevit~ 
able consequence of the acceptanCe of the argument of the accused which has 
appealed to the High, Court 
i~ t'.iat where a manufacturer or distributor sells 
food-stuffs in large sealed containers containing quantities much larger than 
what is required to be taken as sample under the law and the contents of only 
one suCh container <ire exposed, for sale by a vendor after opening the 
container, a Food Inspector would not be able to take a sample at all for 
proceeding under the Act against the manufacturer, distributor or even the 
vendor. Any construction which would lead to such absurd result sbould be 
avoided while construing the provisions of the Act. (718 F-G, 719 A,718 G-H, 
719-G, 719 E, 718 F, 719 A-C] 
A 
B 
c 
State of Kera/a etc. etc. v. Alaserry Mohammad etc. etc., [1978] 2 SCR, D 
820, referred to. 
There seems to_ be no logically sound reason why, if a distributor or a 
manufacturer can be subsequently imp leaded under s. 20-A of the Act, he 
cannot be joined as a co-accus.ed initially in a joint trial if the allegations made 
justify suc~1 a course. [722 C] 
E· 
Bhagwan Dass Jagd1sh Chander v. Delhi Administration. [1975] Supp. 
SCR 30, followed . 
In the instant cas:s, the High Court committed a serious error in 
quash
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.