Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

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.