VIJAY KUMAR versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 701 · Decided: 14-12-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.A 
B 
c 
I) 
.E 
F 
G 
VIJAY KUMAR 
I'.. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
L>en•mber 14, 1973 
[M. H. BEG A1'D Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, 11.] 
701 
_ Pr~1·er11io11 of f'ood Adulter11tio11 A<.·t, s. 16(/)(a)lb) and Rules-Whether 
'f:.lt1<'f11 l>t111a' sold b,v the appella11t was i11sect·i11/ested anti ro11tai11ed les.r tl1P11 
Jiit• rrquirttJ. per<.·~11ftjgt of 1·oltuile oil. 
· 
_ The appellant runs a swcatmeat shop in a village in Punjab. The food 
1nspi!ctor took a sample of ''Elachi Dana', kept for sale by the appellant nnd it 
w~s f~:n111J from the report of the Public Analyst that the sample was infested 
with insects to the extent of 9.7 ~r cent and the volatile oil content thereof 
w:is 0.S per cent instead of l per Cent. 
()n these facts, the appellant was convicted by the l\Iagistrate under s. 
J(>( I )(a)(i) of the Frevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954. 
On appeal, 
the sessions court confirn1ed the ·conviction and sentence and tho High Court 
~ummarity disn1~ssed th~ appeal therefrom. 
In this Court, the fonOwing points were ur&ed : 
(i). On the date when 
tile FC*.l lnspector took the sample, ~neither the Act nor the Rules thereunder 
h:id prescribed .any standard for the Purity of 'Elacbi Dana' and therefore, defi-
ciency in the. volatile oil content could not attract penal consequences. (ii) One 
of the prosecution witnesses admitted in his evidence that the stock of 'Elachi · 
D<1na' frorn which the san1ple was taken· was not insect infested and therefore, 
it follows that the infestatiQn must have supervened· bcnveen the dato 00 1 which 
the s:\n1ple wus t:iken nnll the d<lt~ of the analysis. 
DismiS&ing the "appenl, 
H.ELD: (i) On the relevant date, Rule ·A-05·09 of .the Rules then in force 
pro\·ided that the seed of 'Badi Elncbi' shall not cOntain Jess than 1 tter cent 
of \'Olatile essential oil. ·The new Rule No. A 05.04.01 prescribes the same 
requirement \\'ith the differenct' that; the article is now described as 'Badi Elachi 
seeds' 'instead of 'Badi Elachi'. This is a distinction With a difference because 
the substance of the ·matter is that 'Badi Elachi' (which must include the 'Badi 
Elachi seeJs' ought to OOntain l per cent ''olatile oil. The Badi Elachi fruit 
contains the ~lachi seedi; and the kernel has .no edible value apart front the 
se.eds conti:.incJ. in the fruit. 
[702E] 
(ii) The ~mple. in the present case, was aaalystd 12 days after ·it was 
t:.ikCn. 
Durinp: this sbort pCriod of 12 days, the sample could not get infested 
10 the extent of 9.7 per cent. To the naked eye the insects may not be notice.: 
nblo und that was why the prosecution witness inferred that the stock of 'Elachi 
duna' was not insect-infested. Obviously, what he meant was that it did not 
appear to be infested with insects and therefore, the inference saiJ to· arise 
from the e\·idencr. of the prosecution witness is impossible to accept. 
[70!Hl 
CRIM11'.AL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Criminol Appeal No. 170 
of 1970. 
Appeal by· special )eave (rom the judgment and order dated the 
16th September J 970 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at 
Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 753 of 1970. 
H 
N11rucldi11.Ahmad, B. P. -Singh and A. K. Vemra, for the appel-
lant. 
S. K. Mthta and R. N. Sachilrey, for the respondent. 
702 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1974) 2 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHA:-iDRACHUD, J.-The appellant, 
Vijay Kumar, runs a sweet-
meat shop in a villai:c called Baba Hakala in Punjab. On June 10, 
1968 the Food Inspector, Amritsar, took a sample from the Elachi 
Dana which was kept for sale by the appellant. 
The report of the 
Public Analyst shows that the simple was infested 
with insects to 
the extent of 9.7 per cent and the voltaile oil content thereof was 
.5 per cent instead of 1 per cent. 
On these facts the 
learned 
Judicial 
Magistrate. 
1st 
Class, 
Amritsar convicted the appellant under section 16(1) (a) (I) of the 
Prevention o( Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced him 
to 
rigorous imprisonment 
for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 
The order of conviction and sentence was confirmed in appeal by the 
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar and the appeal against 
that judgment was dismissed summarily by the High Court of Pun-
jab and Haryana. 
This Court granted to the appellant special leave 
to appeal from the judgment of the High Court. 
In his statement under section 342, 
Code of Criminal 
Proce-
dure, the appellant admitted that he was in possession of the Ela

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.