Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India dealt with a criminal appeal by special leave against the Bombay High Court's reversal of acquittal and conviction of the appellant, a dealer in butter, under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The appellant was the proprietor of Cottage Industries in Thana and sold Khandeshi butter. On June 27, 1957, the Food Inspector of Thana Borough Municipality purchased butter from the appellant, divided it into three sealed bottles, gave one to the appellant, sent one to the Public Analyst, and retained one. The Public Analyst reported that the butter contained 18.32% foreign fat, 19.57% moisture, and 64.67% milk fat. The prescribed standard for butter under Rule A.11.05 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 required not less than 80% milk fat and not more than 16% moisture. Consequently, the Food Inspector filed a complaint on October 5, 1957, before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thana, alleging sale of adulterated butter in violation of Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1) of the Act. The Magistrate acquitted the appellant, holding that the identity of the sample was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and that butter prepared from curd did not fall within the definition of butter. The Food Inspector appealed to the Bombay High Court, which reversed the acquittal, holding that the sample had not been tampered with, that butter from curd was covered by the definition, and alternatively, that foreign fat made it adulterated. The High Court convicted the appellant under Section 16(1) read with Section 7(1) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs. 250. The appellant raised before the Supreme Court that butter from curd was not butter under the rules, that the sample sent to the analyst was not the same, and that the report was vague. The Court proceeded on the assumption that the appellant could only be liable if the substance was butter under the rule. The core legal issues were whether butter prepared from curd fell within the definition of 'butter' under Rule A.11.05 and whether non-conformity with prescribed standard amounted to adulteration even without addition of foreign substance. The Court reasoned that butter, by whatever process prepared, is a product from milk; curd is merely soured milk, and the intervening souring process does not change the source. The plain meaning of 'milk or cream' includes butter from curd. The Court also held that Section 2(i)(l) of the Act creates a statutory fiction: if quality or purity falls below prescribed standard or constituents exceed prescribed limits of variability, the article is deemed adulterated, and the accused cannot rebut this by showing no actual adulteration. Therefore, selling butter with less than 80% milk fat and more than 16% moisture or containing foreign fat was selling adulterated butter. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court.
Headnote
A) Food Adulteration - Definition of Butter - Rule A.11.05 of Appendix B to Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Butter prepared from curd is 'butter' within the meaning of the rule because it is prepared from milk, irrespective of the intermediate souring process. The rule's plain words 'prepared exclusively from milk or cream' encompass butter from curd, as curd is derived from milk. The omission of 'curd' in the definition does not exclude it because curd is not an original source but a product of milk. Held that butter prepared from curd falls within the definition, and the appellant was rightly convicted. B) Food Adulteration - Statutory Fiction of Adulteration - Section 2(i)(l) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - An article of food is deemed adulterated if its quality or purity falls below the prescribed standard or constituents are in excess of prescribed limits of variability. The statute creates a legal fiction that non-conformity with the prescribed standard amounts to adulteration, even if no foreign substance is added. Thus selling butter below the prescribed standard of 80% milk fat and maximum 16% moisture constitutes selling adulterated butter under Sections 7(1) and 16(1) of the Act. Held that the appellant's conviction was justified.
Issue of Consideration
Whether butter prepared from curd is 'butter' within meaning of Rule A.11.05 of Appendix B to Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955; and whether selling butter below prescribed standard constitutes selling adulterated butter under Section 2(i)(l) read with Sections 7(1) and 16(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court. The appellant was convicted under Section 16(1) read with Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs. 250. Butter prepared from curd was held to be butter within the meaning of Rule A.11.05 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, and selling butter below the prescribed standard was held to be selling adulterated butter.
Law Points
- Butter prepared from curd is butter under Rule A.11.05
- prescribed standard defines adulteration
- statutory fiction of adulteration under Section 2(i)(l)
- non-conformity with standard sufficient
- selling below standard is offence under Sections 7 and 16.
