Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India dealt with a criminal appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Delhi High Court convicting the appellant under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The appellant, a shopkeeper, was accused of selling adulterated haldi (turmeric) containing 25% foreign starch. On July 31, 1965, a Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi took a sample of haldi from the appellant's shop. The Public Analyst certified that the sample contained foreign starches to the extent of 25 per cent. The appellant was tried before a Magistrate, First Class, Delhi, under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Magistrate acquitted the appellant on the sole ground that the sample was not taken in the presence of independent witnesses, leading to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act. The Delhi High Court set aside the acquittal, holding that Section 10(7) was directory and not mandatory, and convicted the appellant, sentencing him to six months imprisonment. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issues were whether Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is mandatory or directory, whether non-compliance with that provision vitiates the trial and conviction when independent witnesses refuse to cooperate, whether the haldi containing 25% foreign starch is adulterated under the Act and Rules, and the appropriate sentence considering a subsequent rule permitting up to 60% starch in haldi powder. The appellant argued that the 1964 amendment deleting the words 'as far as possible' made Section 10(7) mandatory and that the Public Analyst's report did not state that the starch injuriously affected the quality of haldi, so it was not adulterated under Section 2(1)(b). The respondent contended that the Food Inspector had called neighbouring shopkeepers but none cooperated, that Rule 44 prohibited any foreign substance in turmeric, and that the prosecution was relieved of its obligation to cite independent witnesses. The Supreme Court held that Section 10(7) is directory, not mandatory. It observed that the Food Inspector is required to call one or more independent persons to be present, but if those persons refuse to cooperate and cannot be compelled, the prosecution is relieved of its obligation to cite independent witnesses. The Court relied on Babulal Hargovindas v. State of Gujarat, which held that non-compliance with Section 10(7) does not vitiate the trial and that the Food Inspector is not an accomplice, so his evidence alone can sustain a conviction. The Court also held that the sale of haldi containing foreign starch was in contravention of Rule 44(h) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, and therefore an offence under Section 7(v) of the Act. However, considering Rule A.05.20.01, which came into force after the date of the offence and allows up to 60% starch by weight in haldi powder, and the fact that the prosecution did not press for a substantive sentence, the Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to a fine of Rs. 1000, which the appellant had already paid.
Headnote
A) Food Adulteration - Independent Witness Requirement - Section 10(7) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Directory Nature - Section 10(7) requires Food Inspector to call one or more independent persons when taking action, but the provision is directory not mandatory; non-compliance does not automatically vitiate trial, especially when witnesses refuse to cooperate. Held that obligation is to call, not compel presence; prosecution relieved of obligation to cite independent witnesses if shopkeepers refuse. (Paras 1-4) B) Food Adulteration - Adulteration Standard - Rule 44 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and Section 7(v) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sale of turmeric containing foreign starch prohibited; presence of 25% foreign starch makes Haldi adulterated irrespective of injurious effect. Held that Rule 44(h) prohibits any foreign substance, so violation of Section 7(v) established. (Paras 1-2) C) Food Adulteration - Sentence - Rule A.05.20.01 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Post-offence standard allowing 60% starch relevant for sentence; High Court imposed six months imprisonment; Supreme Court modified to fine of Rs.1000, considering subsequent rule and prosecution not pressing for substantive sentence. Held that conviction upheld but sentence modified. (Paras 3-4) D) Evidence - Food Inspector's Testimony - Section 10(7) context - Food Inspector not an accomplice; his evidence alone can sustain conviction if believed. Held that independent corroboration not mandatory when witnesses unavailable. (Paras 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is mandatory or directory; whether non-compliance with the requirement to call independent witnesses vitiates the trial and conviction; whether the sample of Haldi containing 25% foreign starch is adulterated under the Act and Rules.
Final Decision
Supreme Court confirmed conviction but modified sentence: upheld conviction under Section 7 read with Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, but reduced sentence from six months imprisonment to fine of Rs. 1000, which appellant had already paid. Section 10(7) held directory.
Law Points
- Section 10(7) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954 is directory
- not mandatory
- Food Inspector must call one or more independent persons but non-compliance does not vitiate trial if witnesses refuse
- Rule 44 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
- 1955 prohibits sale of turmeric containing any foreign substance
- Rule A.05.20.01 allows up to 60% starch in Haldi Powder post-1968 relevant to sentence
- prosecution relieved of obligation to cite independent witnesses if shopkeepers refuse to cooperate
- court cannot countenance conspiracy to keep out independent witnesses.
