Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sugan Chand vs State Of Haryana on 21 December, 2000
Author: V.M. Jain
Bench: V.M. Jain
ORDER V.M. Jain, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 482 Crl.PC filed by the accused petitioner, seeking quashment of the criminal complaint filed by the Food Inspector under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
2. In the petition, it was'alleged that as per allegations male in the criminal complaint, Shri R.D. Goel, Food Inspector, inspected the premises of accused petitioner on 21.1.1987 and had taken the sample of "Zira Safed". After receiving the report of the Public Analyst that the sample contained 6 living weevils, 6 dead weevils and 26 living meal worms (copy Annexure P1), Ihe aforesaid criminal complaint was filed by the Govt. Food Inspector before the Judicial Magistrate (copy Annexure P2). It was alleged that the criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon by the Judicial Magistrate were abuse of the process of the court and were liable to be quashed on the ground that the Public Analyst had nowhere mentioned that the article of Food "Zira Safed" was insect-infested or was unfit for human consumption. It was accordingly prayed that the criminal complaint be quashed.
3. I have heard The learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case, as per report of the Public Analyst, 6 living weevils, 6 dead weevils and 26 living meal worms were found in the sample and that it could not be said that the sample was insect-infested or was unfit for human consumption. However, during the course of arguments. The learned counsel for the petitioner admitted before me that "weevils" are "insects". In support of his submission that the criminal complaint and subsequent proceedings taken thereon were liable to be quashed on the ground that neither the sample was insect-infested not the Public Analyst had reported that the sample was unfit for human consumption and thus the criminal proceedings taken thereon were liable to be quashed, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following authorities:-
1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shri Kacheroo Mal, 1975 Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 223 (SC).
2. Delhi Administration v. Sat Sarup Sharma, 1996(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 356 (SC).
3. State of Punjab v. Prem Lal, 1992(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 261 (P&H) (DB).
4. State of Haryana v. Om Parkash, (P&H) 1992 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal 311.
5. State of Punjab v. Jyoti Ram, 1985 Criminal Law Times 205 (P&H)(DB).
6. State of Punjab v. Sain Dass, Criminal Appeal No. 141-DB of 1987, decided on 12.9.1991 (P&H)(DB).
7. Jeet Kumar Anand v. State of Punjab, Crl.M.No. 5276-M of 1989, decided on 8.5.1990.
8. Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1988(II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 42 (P&H).
9. Gulshan Rai v. State of Punjab, 1983(II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 32S (P&H).
10. Inder Bhan v. State of Punjab, 1984(2) Recent Criminal Reports 362 (P&H).
11. Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2000(3) RCR (Criminal) 132 (P&H).
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record, in my opinion, none of the authorities, referred to above, would help the petitioner nor the criminal complaint and/or subsequent proceedings taken thereof can be quashed in view of the abovesaid authorities.
6. As referred to above, in the present case, the Public Analyst in his report copy An-nexure P1 had found that there are 6 living weevils, 6 dead weevils and 26 living meal worms in the sample of "Zira Safed". It would also be clear that weevils are insects.
7. Section 2(ia) of the Act has defined "adulterated" as under: -
"Adulterated" - An article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated -
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
(f) if the article consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect-infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption."
8. In 1975 FAC 223 (supra), it was held by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the word "insect-infested" had not been defined in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and has, therefore, to be given its ordinary meaning. It was further held in the said authority that if an article of food is attacked by insects in large swarms or numbers and for some reason those insects die, the mere fact that the article of food has no longer living insects but has dead insects will not change its character of being "insect-infested". On the question as to whether a food article is unfit for human consumption or not, it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that opinion of the Public Analyst, who examined and analysed the sample as to the fitness or otherwise of the sample for human consumption, would constitute legal evidence and in each case it must be proved that the article was unlit for human consumption. In my opinion, the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in this authority would be of no help to the accused petitioner. In the present case the question as to whether the sample was unfit for human consumption or not would come much later. On the other hand, in the present case, prima facie, it is proved that the sample contained 6 living and 6 dead weevils and in all 12 weevils (insects). That being so, on the face of it, it would be clear that the sample was inspect infested. In 1996(2) FAC 356 (supra), the sample of "suji" contained only 8 living meal worms and one living weevil. Since the Public Analyst had not opined that the sample of "suji" was either insect-infested or it was unfit for human consumption, on account of presence of meal worms, the learned Magistrate had acquitted the accused respondent. The appeal against his acquittal filed before the High Court also failed. In further appeal against acquittal, it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that on the facts of the said case, it was not possible for their Lordships to upset order of acquittal passed by the trial Magistrate or to find fault with the order of acquittal. Reliance was placed on the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case reported as State (Delhi Admn.) v. Puran Mal, 1985(1) FAC 161, In the reported case, the Public Analyst had found 9 worms in the sample of "Lal Mirch". It was under those circumstances that it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that it could not be said that the sample was insect-infested or that because of the presence of meal worms, the sample was unfit for human consumption, in the absence of any opinion of the Public Analyst in this regard. In my opinion, the law laid down by their Lordships in these authorities would also be of no help to the accused petitioner. In 1992(1) FAC 261 (supra) the sample of "Maida" contained 8 living insects. However, in his cross-examination, Food Inspector had admitted that when he purchased "maida" for sample, there was nothing wrong with it and he did not observe any insect present therein, ft was under those circumstances that order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate was upheld by this Court in appeal against acquittal. In 1992 FAC 311 (supra), the sample of "Zira" was found to contain one weevil and 16 living meal worms. It was held by a Division Bench of this Court while placing reliance on the law laid down in case reported as State v. Puran Mal, AIR 1985 SC 741 that it is not possible that a worm and an insect, are the same. It was further held by Division Bench of this court that the presence of worms itself would not make the sample adulterated and that the presence of 16 living meal worms would not make the sample of "zira" insect-infested, especially when the Public Analyst had nowhere stated that Zira was unfit for human consumption. -It was furtherheld in the said authority that there have to be a large number of insects present in an article of food before it can be said to be insect-infested. Since, in the reported case there was only one weevil in the sample, it could not be said that the sample was insect-infested. In 1985 Criminal Law Times 205 (supra) the sample of "moongki dal" (250 grams) contained 10 dead insects and 1 rat dropping. It was under those circumstances that the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court. In Criminal Appeal No. 141-DB of 1987 (supra), the sample of "atta" contained 19 living insects and 1 living susri. It was held by a Division Bench of this Court that the presence of 19 living sundis and I living susri could not be said to be insect-infested and as such the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court. In Criminal Misc. No. 5276-M of 1989 (supra), the sample of "haldi" powder contained 5 dead insects and 2 excreta. It was under those circumstances that it was held that it could not be said that the sample was insect-infested and as such the complaint and the consequent proceedings pending before the trial court were quashed by this Court. In 1988(11) FAC 42 (supra), the sample of "haldi" powder contained 10 dead insects. It was under those circumstances that it was held that the sample could not be said to be adulterated. Similarly in 1983(11) FAC 328 (supra) the sample of "atta" was found to contain living and dead insects. However, the accused was acquitted by this court only on the ground that there was moisture in the sample and wheat flour insects could have grown on their own and would have died their natural death thereafter during the span of 19 days when the sample was unpacked. Thus, this authority is not applicable to the point in issue. In 1984(11) RCR 362 (supra), the sample of "saunf' contained 20 living and dead insects. However, at the time when the sample was taken by the Food Inspector no living or dead insect was seen by him, as admitted by the Food Inspector during cross- examination. It was under those circumstances that the accused was acquitted holding that the possibility of developing those insects in the sample after the purchase could not be ruled out. Thus, the law laid down in this authority is also not on the point raised before me by the counsel for the petitioner. In 2000(3) RCR (Criminal) 132 (supra), the Public Analyst had found that there were 8 living meal worms and one living weevil in the sample of "besan". Under those circumstances, it was held that it could not be said that the sample was insect-infested or that it was unfit for human consumption in the absence of a definite report from the Public Analyst in this regard.
9. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia, 1980(1) Supreme Court Cases 158, it was held by their Lordships of Supreme Court as under:-
"In the definition clause, the collection of words filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed and insect-infested which are adjectives qualifying the term an article of food, show that it is not of the nature, substance and quality fit for human consumption. It will be noticed that there is a comma after each of the first three words. It should also be noted that these qualifying adjectives cannot be read into the last portion of the definition i.e., the words 'or is otherwise unfit for human consumption', which is quite separate and distinct from others. The word 'otherwise' signifies unfitness for human consumption due to other causes. If the last portion is meant to mean something different, it becomes difficult to understand how the word 'or' has used in the definition of 'adulterated' in Section 2(i)(f) between filthy, putrid, rotten, etc. and 'otherwise unfit for human consumption' could have been intended to be used conjunctively. It would be more appropriate in the context to read it disjunctively....."
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Various categories of adulterated food mentioned in Section 2(i)(f) broadly fall into two kinds of adulteration; firstly, where the constituent elements make the food obnoxious to human health or the existence of the particular composition of it, itself makes (he food adulterated, and secondly where the adulteration is constituted by the fact that the prescribed standard has not been observed in selling what purports to be a food of that standard or quality.
We really fail to comprehend why the mere proof of an article of food like decomposed or diseased meat or rotten fish or putrid fruits and vegetables by the condition of the article itself should not be sufficient to attract the definition of 'adulterated' contained in Section 2(i)(f) and further proof of unfitness of the article for human consumption is still necessary for bringing home the guilt."
10. The authority Municipal Corporation, Delhi v. Kacheroo Mat (supra) was also considered by their Lordships in Tek Chand Bhatia's case (supra) and it was held as under :-
"With utmost respect, we are not able to share this view and would hold that the observations made in the judgment should be confined to the particular facts of that case.
The decision in Kacheroo Mal's case was largely based on the circumstances that the standard of quality and purity was not prescribed in respect of cashew nuts...
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX The decision in Kacheroo Mal's case is, however, distinguishable inasmuch as there was in that case no evidence that the cashew nuts, which were insect- infested to the extent of 21.9%, were unfit for human consumption.
In regard to cashew nuts there was, at the material time, no statutory provision prescribing any minimum standards of purity. It is, therefore, for the Court to decide upon the evidence in the case, whether the insect infestation found was of such nature and extent so as to make it unfit for human consumption."
11. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Manmohan Lal and another, 1984(1) Supreme Court Cases 670, after noticing that there was a clear conflict between two decisions, one in Kacheroo Mal's case (supra) and the other in Tek Chand Bhatia's case (supra), their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that it was not necessary to refer to question to a larger Bench for resolving the two controversies because it was clear from the evidence of Dr. S.P. Pingle, an expert, examined on behalf of the Corporation, that the Besan sold by the accused was not only insect-infested, but the infestation"was of such a serious character that it rendered the Besan unfit for human consumption and thus, in any view of the matter, the requirement of the offence under Section 2(l)(a)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was satisfied.
12. In the present case, as referred to above, the learned Magistrate is still seized of the matter. The evidence is still being recorded. The petitioner has filed the present petition in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the criminal complaint and subsequent proceedings on the ground that Public Analyst in his report had nowhere stated that the sample was unfit for human consumption. As referred to above, at this stage, the criminal complaint and the subsequent proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground alone, especially when as per the report of the Public Analyst the sample of "Zira Safed" contained 6 living weevils, 6 dead weevils (insects) and 26 living meal worms. That being so, at this stage, the criminal complaint and the subsequent proceedings taken thereon cannot be quashed especially when the case is still at the stage of complainant's evidence and at this stage, it cannot be said that the sample of Zira safed was not "adulterated", which may require the quashment of the criminal complaint and subsequent proceedings.
13. In view of the above, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the learned trial court shall decide the case on merits without being influenced by the observations made above.