Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of Accused in Food Adulteration Case. Evidence of Food Inspector alone held sufficient for Section 10(7) compliance when panch witness turned hostile; Medical Officer's consent valid under Section 20(1) despite authorization by Corporation rather than Commissioner; Rule 7(2) not ultra vires.

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Babu Lal Hargovindas, carried on business of selling milk in Ahmedabad. On 2 December 1965, Food Inspector Mangulal C. Mehta visited his shop, disclosed his identity, and purchased 700 ml of cow's milk for analysis. The milk was divided into three parts, poured into three bottles, and sixteen drops of formalin were added as preservative to each bottle. The bottles were corked, sealed, wrapped, and signatures of panch witness Adambhai Rasulbhai were taken. One bottle was given to the appellant, one kept by the Food Inspector, and one sent to the Public Analyst. The sample was analyzed by chemist Laxmansingh Vaghela under authorization from Public Analyst Dr. Vyas, revealing total non-fat solids of 7.4% instead of the minimum prescribed 8.5%, indicating adulteration. After receiving the Public Analyst's report, the Food Inspector filed a complaint on 6 April 1966 with the written consent of the Medical Officer of Health of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. The City Magistrate, 6th Court, Ahmedabad convicted the appellant under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default three months further imprisonment. The Gujarat High Court confirmed the conviction. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court by certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. The appellant raised four main contentions before the Supreme Court. First, Section 10(7) of the Act was not complied with because the panch witness did not support the prosecution and denied being present when the sample was taken. Second, the appellant was denied the opportunity under Section 13(2) to send his sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory because the complaint was filed after a lapse of over four months, during which the sample could not have been preserved. Third, the Medical Officer of Health was not validly authorized under Section 20(1) to give written consent, as under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 the Municipal Commissioner rather than the Corporation should have authorized such consent. Fourth, Rule 7(2) of the Food Adulteration Rules, which permitted the Public Analyst to cause samples to be analyzed by persons under him, was ultra vires Sections 13(1) and 23(1)(e) of the Act. The Supreme Court rejected all contentions. On the first issue, the Court held that the fact that the panch witness refused to support the prosecution did not mean that Section 10(7) had not been complied with. The evidence of the Food Inspector alone, if believed, could be relied on to prove that samples were taken as required by law. The Court noted that courts of fact may find it difficult to rely on the testimony of the Food Inspector alone in some cases, but the circumstances of each case determine the weight to be given. In the present case, the courts below were justified in concluding on the Food Inspector's evidence that the samples were seized in the presence of the panch witness whose signatures were taken in the presence of the accused. On the second issue, the Court held that since the appellant had made no application to send the sample in his custody to the Director, Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2), he could not complain about delay. Moreover, the Food Inspector had added a preservative to the appellant's sample, distinguishing the decision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram. On the third issue, the Court held that the Medical Officer of Health was duly authorized by a resolution of the Municipal Corporation. A combined reading of Sections 67(3) and 68(1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 indicated that the Corporation is the controlling authority and could restrict the Commissioner's powers. Section 20(1) of the Food Adulteration Act placed no restriction on the Corporation to circumscribe the Commissioner's powers. The Court also held that the complaint need not be in the name of the Corporation, relying on State of Bombay v. Parshottam Kanaiyalal. On the fourth issue, the Court held that Rule 7(2) was not ultra vires. There was no inconsistency between Rule 7 and Section 13(1), and the rule was within the rule-making powers under Section 23(1)(e) which empower the Central Government to define qualifications, powers, and duties of Food Inspectors and Public Analysts. The appeal was dismissed.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld. The Supreme Court held that Section 10(7) was complied with based on Food Inspector's evidence; appellant not denied opportunity under Section 13(2); Medical Officer of Health validly authorized; Rule 7(2) not ultra vires.

Law Points