Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"This.. (name of food) contains an admixture .... (name of the artificial sweatier).

The use of a saccharin is permitted under Rule 47 in case of carbonated water in item 5(3-A 1.01.01 but no such benefit is enjoyed by supari. Cyclamates have never been permitted sweeteners.

The crucial inculpatory facts are virtually admitted. The sale is established and so also the presence of saccharin and cyclamate in the supari sample. Under the Rules extant on a January 25, 1971 the appellant admuits the two sweetners are prohibited as additives to supari. The contravention of s. 7 read with rr. 44(g and 47 being plainly proved the offence falls not under s@. (i) but sub- s. (v). None of the Many alternatives-in s. 2(i) applies bee use there is neither averment nor proof-and counsel for the State fairly conceded this-that the sweeteners in question ate injurious to health and the other subclauses cannot be attracted. Perhaps they are. Even if they are not it is perfectly possible that the State may-ban their use. But it these additives are,toxic it is a failure of. duty of the Food Inspector not to have averred in the complaint and Adduced evidence in support, a matter which the concerned authorities will consider. Indifferent action of the prosecution also occasions failure of justice to the community especially when faceless victims are involved like under food regulation laws. Any way, the fact is-and the court cannot help it the absence of evidence (a) that the supari contains any poisonous or other ingredients which renders it injurious to health or (b) that it contains any other substance causing injury as indicated in s. 2(i)

"Circular Subject : Licensing of scented supari. The Commissioner Food and Drug Administration, has informed this office that the Central Committee for Food Standards has accepted the recommendation of its subcommittee that saccharin may be permitted to be used in scented supari to the extent or 100 p.p.m. and that C.C.P.S. is moving the Government of India, Ministry of Health, for suitable amendment to the Rules. In view of this, it is not advisable to institute prosecutions as merely for presence of saccharin in scented supari and where such cases have already been launched the papers should be submitted to this office, for orders for withdrawal. The Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, has further informed this office that in view of the proposed amendments, firms adding saccharin to the aforesaid limit in supari can be licensed under M.P.F.A. Rules."

So far cyclamate is concerned, although the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules do not permit its use it is seen in the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules a ban on the use of cyclamates was introduced only on June 21, 1972 and that is relied- on to argue that till that time it was not regarded as injurious "a sort of aliki for its presence in the accused's supari sample. The relevant rule is rule 84(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.

With this background of the Act and the Rules we may evaluate the pleas urged by counsel for the accused which we. proceed to formulate. Of course, the spectrum of submissions has ranged from challenging the status of supari as food and the toxicological hazards of saccharin and cyclamate and culminated in the unconstitutionality of the rules which ban the use of these food additives, and even the rule-making power, S. 23, for violation of arts. 14 and 19(1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution. Covering this ground, the appellant hopefully posed the following questions which are may itomise thus (1) Is supari food?

Before proceeding to discuss the points so. framed we may dispose of the extraordinary plea that s. 23(1)(b) of the Act, empowering them Central Government, in consultation with the Expert Committee, to make rules defining the standards and quality for and fixing the limits of variability permissible in respect of any article of food, is bad since the statute lays down no policy, principles nor guidelines regarding the articles of food for which standards are to be prescribed, etc. etc. The. vice of uncanalised executive power and tie evil of excessive delegation of legislative power are the two fatal factors pressed before us. Had counsel granted us some familiarity with this branch of constitutional law everybody's time would pro tanto have been, saved. Comprehensive powers of rule-making have been vested in the Central Government, and since the subject is technical there, is a direction in the statute to Government that the Central Committee for Food Standards shall be constituted consisting of specialists in the various fields concerned and to consult that Committee before framing rules. The ,naked power' submission is demolished by the guidelines implicit in L 447SCI/74 the statute, by the Committee built into the system, by the specifications contained in the rule-making provisions and by the safeguard of laying the rules, before the Houses. We now proceed to consider the bold bid made by the appellant to convince the Court that supari is not an article of food and, as such, the admixture of any sweetener cannot attract the penal provisions at all. He who runs and reads the definition in S. 2(v) of the Act will answer back that supari is food. The lexicographic learning, pharma- copic erudition, the ancient medical literature and extracts of encyclopedias pressed before us with great industry are worthy of a more substantial submission. Indeed, learned counsel treated us to an extensive study to make out that supari was not a food but a drug. He explained the botany of bettlenut, drew our attention to Dr. Nandkarni's Indian Materia Medica, invited us to the great Susruta's reference to this aromatic stimulant in a valiant endeavor to persuade us to hold that supari was more medicinal than edible. We are here concerned with a law regulating adulteration of food which effects the common people in their millions and their health. We are dealing with a commodity which is consumed by the ordinary man in houses, hotels, marriage parties and even routinely. In the field of legal interpretation, dictionary scholarship and precedent-based connotations cannot become a universal guide or semantic tyrant, oblivious of the social context, subject of legislation and object of the law. The meaning of common words relating to common articles consumed by the common people, available commonly and contained in a statute intended to protect the community generally, must be gathered from the commonsense understanding of the word. The Act-defines 'food' very widely as covering any article used as food and every component which enters into it, and even flavoring matter and condiments. It is commonplace knowledge that the word "food" is a very general term and applies to all that is eaten by man for nourishment and takes in subsidiaries. Is supari eaten with relish by man for taste and nourishment ? It is. And so it is food. Without carrying further on this unusual argument we hold that supari is food within the meaning of s. 2(v) of the Act.