Case Note & Summary
This appeal arose from a prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, against the respondent, who ran a shop at Haldwani and sold ghee. On March 19, 1960, a Food Inspector purchased a quantity of ghee from the respondent, sealed samples in three phials, and noted the product as 'pahadi ghee'. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported a Reichert Value of 22.5 against the prescribed minimum of 28 for Uttar Pradesh and opined that the sample contained a small proportion of vegetable fat or oil foreign to pure ghee. A second sample was analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, who reported a Reichert Value of 21.7 and also declared the sample adulterated. The respondent admitted selling the ghee but denied adulteration, raising two defences: first, that the ghee came from Jodhpur where the minimum Reichert value was 21, and second, relying on State v. Malik Ram, which distinguished between ghee from hill and plains cattle and held that ghee from hill districts of U.P. with a Reichert value of 26 could not be considered adulterated. The trial Magistrate rejected both defences, found the respondent guilty, and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 500 with default imprisonment. On appeal, the Sessions Judge upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to one month rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 200. In revision, the Allahabad High Court agreed that the ghee was of local origin and not from Jodhpur, but held that the Reichert value standards were not based on rational classification and therefore a vendor need only satisfy the minimum prescribed for any area in the country. Since the minimum for certain areas was 21 and the respondent's ghee had a value above that, the High Court acquitted him. The State appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that government-prescribed standards cannot be struck down as unreasonable or discriminatory merely on a priori reasoning; a party invoking Article 14 must make specific averments and lead scientific evidence to establish arbitrariness. No such plea or evidence existed in this case. The Court further held that State v. Malik Ram was wrongly decided, and that the High Court erred by adopting the lowest national standard for all areas. The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal, set aside the High Court's acquittal, and restored the conviction and sentence as modified by the Sessions Judge, namely one month rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 200.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Reasonable Classification - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14 - The High Court held that Reichert value standards for ghee were not based on rational classification. The Supreme Court held that when the Government has prescribed standards after considering various factors, a court cannot strike them down as unreasonable or discriminatory on mere a priori reasoning; the party alleging unconstitutionality must make specific averments and lead scientific evidence to establish arbitrariness. In the absence of such plea and evidence, the court cannot refuse to enforce the rule merely because it views the standards as too high. Held that the High Court erred by striking down the rules without such evidence. (Paras not available) B) Food Adulteration - Ghee Standards - Reichert Value - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Sections 2(i), 7, 16(1)(a)(i), 23; Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Rule 5, Appendix B A-11 item 14 - The issue was whether ghee with Reichert value below the prescribed minimum for Uttar Pradesh (28) could be excused because lower minima existed elsewhere. The Supreme Court held that the prescribed standard for the area of sale must be satisfied; a vendor cannot rely on the lowest prescribed standard in any part of the country. The High Court's adoption of the lowest national minimum disregarded the rules and was erroneous. Held that the High Court was wrong in allowing the revision and acquitting the respondent. (Paras not available) C) Precedent - State v. Malik Ram - Distinction between hill and plains ghee - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - The respondent relied on State v. Malik Ram, which held that ghee from hill districts of U.P. with Reichert value of 26 could not be adulterated. The Supreme Court held that State v. Malik Ram was wrongly decided, as it created a distinction without statutory or scientific basis. The High Court in the present case went further and applied the lowest national standard, which was also wrong. Held that the decision in State v. Malik Ram was not good law. (Paras not available)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the fixation of different Reichert values for ghee for different States of India under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, was unreasonable or discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; whether the High Court could adopt the lowest prescribed Reichert value for any area in the country for all areas; and whether the decision in State v. Malik Ram (AIR 1962 All 156) correctly distinguished between hill and plains ghee.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal, set aside the High Court's acquittal, and restored the conviction and sentence as modified by the Sessions Judge, namely one month rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 200.
Law Points
- Government-prescribed food standards cannot be struck down as unreasonable or discriminatory under Article 14 on mere a priori reasoning
- party invoking Article 14 must make specific averments and lead scientific evidence to establish unconstitutionality
- courts cannot adopt the lowest prescribed standard for any area in the country to override the standard applicable to the area of sale
- State v. Malik Ram (AIR 1962 All 156) was wrongly decided
- High Court erred in allowing revision and acquitting respondent
- conviction and sentence as modified by Sessions Judge restored
