Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court addressed the appeals concerning the prosecution of a Superintendent of District Jail under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The appellant was aggrieved by the order that declined to quash the cognizance taken against him for allegedly storing adulterated food items, specifically Haldi and Rice, intended for prisoners' consumption. The prosecution claimed that these items were found to be adulterated based on the Public Analyst's report, leading to the filing of two separate prosecution reports under Section 16 of the Act. The Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance and issued process, which was upheld by the Sessions Judge in revision applications. Subsequently, the appellant filed applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court, which were dismissed. The Supreme Court, upon examining the submissions, noted that the appellant's argument centered on the fact that the food items were not stored for sale but for the consumption of inmates. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 7 and 16, concluding that the term 'store' must be interpreted in the context of the Act, which primarily targets the sale of adulterated food. The court referenced the precedent set in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Laxmi Narain Tandon, emphasizing that storage for purposes other than sale does not constitute an offence under the Act. Consequently, the court quashed the prosecution, determining that the allegations did not amount to an offence and constituted an abuse of the court's process. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Quashing of Prosecution - Storage of Food for Consumption - Prosecution quashed as storage of adulterated food not for sale does not constitute an offence under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - The court held that the term 'store' in the context of the Act implies storage for sale, and since the appellant stored food for inmates, it did not fall within the mischief of the Act. Held that prosecution was an abuse of process (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the storage of adulterated food items for consumption rather than for sale constitutes an offence under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders, and quashed the prosecution against the appellant under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Law Points
- Quashing of prosecution
- interpretation of storage
- Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Section 16(1)(a)
- Section 7
- Section 10
