STATE OF TAMIL NADU versus S. SHANUMUGHAM CHETTIAR & ANR.

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 774 · Decided: 22-09-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

774 
B 
c 
STA:TE OF TAMIL NADU 
v. 
S. SHANUMUGHAM CHETTIAR & ANR. 
September 22, 1980 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
Preventfon .r,f Food Adulterllltion Act, 1954; Section 16(l)(a) read with 
Section (i) and 2.(i) (L)-gingelly oil-increase in the Free Fatty Acid content-
Oil whether becomes adulterated. 
Under section 2(i)(L) (before it was amended in 1976) of the Prevention 
of Food Adulteration Act,· 1954, an article of food is deemed to be adulternted 
"if the quality of purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its 
constituents are present in quantities which are in excess of the prescribed limits 
D 
of variability". 
E 
F 
G 
H 
On November 1, 1969, sample of gingelly oil was purchased by the Muni-
cipal Food Inspector from the shop of the respondents. 
Aftet completing 
the necessary formalities, the Food Inspector arranged to send one part of 
the sample to the Public Analyst for analysis. 
The Public Analyst analysed 
the sample on November 11, 1969 and reported that it contained 5.1 % of 
Free Fatty Acid as against the permissible limit of 3 % . 
On receipt of the 
report, the respondents were ,Prosecuted for offences under Section 16(1)(a)(i) 
read with Section 7(i) and 2(i)(L) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 
At the trial, in pursuance of the respondents request, another sample was got 
analysed on Febrnary 6, 1970 by the 
Director, Central Food 
Laboratory. 
According to his report, the gingelly oil contained 6.2 % of the Free Fatty 
Acid and was therefore, adulterated. 
The District :Magistrate observing that the Free Fatty Acid had increased 
from 5.1 % to 6.2% between November 11, 1969 and February 6, 1970 and 
it was therefore, likely that the Free Fatty Acid content in the oil might 
have similarly increased between November 1, 1969 when the sample was tal:en 
and November 11, 1969 when the sample was analysed by the Public Analyst, 
held that it was not possible to say that the prosecution had established that 
on the date when the sample was taken the Free Fatty Acid content of the 
oil exceed 3 % and acquitted the respondents. 
The order of acquittal was 
confirmed by the High Court. In the appeal to this Court, it was, 
HELD : I (i) The judgments of the District Magistrate and the High Court 
are set aside. 
The second respondent is convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) 
and sentenced to pay a fine. 
[780C] 
(ii) There was no justification for the conclusion of the District Magistrate 
and the High Court that the Free Fatty Acid content of the oil on the 
date when the sample was taken might have been less than 3 % and therefore 
not adulterated. [780B] 
TAMIL NADU v. s. SHANUMUGHAM (Chinnappa Reddy, !.) 
775 . 
In the instant case, the Public Analyst report had been superseded by the 
A 
~ertificate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, and the latter certificate 
had become conclusive evidence of the 
facts mentioned in it. 
The sample, 
must therefore be held, to be adulterated. There was nothing in the evidence, 
nor had anything been shown from any scientific work which would suggest 
that the Free Fatty Acid content would so rapidly increase in the space of 
.about three months. If it was less than. 3% on November l, 1969 when the 
·sample was taken it could not have increased to 6.2 % by February 6, 1970 
B 
when the sample was analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. 
[777H, 7780] 
2. Gingelly (Ti! or Sesame) oil is a semi-drying 'oil. It is only after Pro-
longed exposure to air and light that there may be some discernible chemical 
-changs in gingelly (Ti! or sesame) oil. [779G] 
New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 13 pages 526-527 referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 115 
of 1975. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment 
10-1-1972 of the 
Madras High 
Court in Crl. 
No. 657/70. 
A. V. Rangam for the Appellant. 
A. T. M. Sampath for the Respondents. 
The Jud?ment of the Court was delivered by 
and Order dated 
Appeal No. 64 
CttrNNAPPA REDDY, J.-On November l, · 1969, a sample of 
gingelly oil was purchased by the Food Inspector, Madurai Munici-
pality from the shop of the first respondent, who is now reported to 
be dead and against whom, t'.his appeal, has, therefore, abated. At that 
time re5pondent No. 2 was attending to the business. After complet-
ing the necessary flormalities the Food Inspector arranged to send one 
part of the samplt". to the Public Analyst at Madras for analysis. The 
sample
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.