Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Selling Adulterated Butter Under Food Adulteration Act — Definition of Butter Includes Curd-Based Products.

  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal against the conviction of a shop proprietor for selling adulterated butter under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The appellant contended that butter made from curd did not fall under the definition of butter as per the relevant rules. The Food Inspector had purchased butter from the appellant, which was later analyzed and found to contain foreign fat and moisture levels exceeding the prescribed standards. The Judicial Magistrate initially acquitted the appellant, but the High Court reversed this decision, leading to the current appeal. The Supreme Court analyzed the definition of butter in the context of the Act and the Rules, concluding that butter made from curd is indeed butter as it is derived from milk. The court emphasized that the Act treats any food item falling below the prescribed standards as adulterated, regardless of the absence of foreign substances. The court ultimately modified the sentence from imprisonment to a fine, reflecting the conflicting interpretations of the law regarding curd-based butter. The appeal was dismissed with a fine imposed on the appellant.

Headnote

A) Food Law - Definition of Butter - Butter Prepared from Curd - Butter made from curd falls within the definition of 'butter' under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Sections 2, 7, 16 - The court held that butter prepared from curd is still considered butter as it is derived from milk, thus meeting the definition in the rules. The appellant's conviction was upheld as the butter sold was below the prescribed standards, constituting adulteration (Paras 1-30).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether butter prepared from curd is considered butter under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for selling adulterated butter, modifying the sentence to a fine of Rs. 500 instead of imprisonment.

Law Points

  • Food adulteration
  • definition of butter
  • Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
  • 1954
  • standards of food quality
  • penal statutes interpretation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 1959

1961-02-27

K. Subba Rao, Raghubar Dayal

H. J. Umrigar, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadrichanji, Rameshwar Nath, Ravinder Narain, Naunit Lal, B. K. Khanna, R. H. Dhebar

M. V. Joshi

M. U. Shimpi and Another

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for selling adulterated food.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to overturn conviction and sentence.

Filing Reason

Conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling butter below prescribed standards.

Previous Decisions

Initial acquittal by Judicial Magistrate, reversed by High Court.

Issues

Whether butter made from curd is considered butter under the Act. Whether the butter sold was below the prescribed standards.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that butter from curd does not meet the definition of butter. Appellant contended that the butter analyzed was not the same as that sold.

Ratio Decidendi

Butter prepared from curd is included in the definition of butter under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, and selling butter below the prescribed standards constitutes adulteration.

Judgment Excerpts

Held, that the appellant had been rightly convicted. The plain meaning of the words used in the section indicates that butter prepared from milk or cream, by whatever process, is comprehended by the definition.

Procedural History

The appellant was initially acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thana. The acquittal was appealed by the Food Inspector to the Bombay High Court, which reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant, leading to the current appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: 2, 7, 16
  • Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955: Appendix B, r. A-II, 0. 5
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Challenging Restoration of Land Rights Due to Delayed Compensation Payment. Court Found that Delays Were Attributable to Ongoing Litigation and Not the Respondents' Fault.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal on Employment Status in Labour Relations — Employer's Subterfuge Found.