http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: MOHAMMED YAMIN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF UTTAR PRADE5H & ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT26/04/1972

BENCH: MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN BENCH: MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN

CITATION:  1973 AIR  484            1973 SCR  (1) 350  1972 SCC  (2) 184

ACT: Prevention  of Food Adulteration Act, 37 of 1954 ss.  7  and 16-Definition  of  jaggery in Para A. 07.05  of  Rules  made under Act-Standard laid down for jaggery whether applies  to Shakkar-Shakkar whether jaggery-If dealer sells  adulterated Shakkar he commits offence under s. 16 read with s. 7 of Act even  if  the Shakkar was not stored for sale-Sale  to  Food Inspector is a sale for the Purpose of s. 16(1) of the Act.

HEADNOTE: The Food Inspector purchased 1-1/2 seers of Shakkar from the appellant  after  paying its price.  He divided  the  sample into three parts, gave one to the appellant and retained the other  two with him.  One of the samples retained’ was  sent to  the Public Analyst for examination.  The Public  Analyst found  it to be adulterated because of excess of  extraneous matter.   The  food Inspector filed a complaint  before  the Magistrate who convicted the appellant ’for an offence under s.  16  read  with  section 7  of  the  Prevention  of  Food Adulteration  Act  1954.   In  appeal  the  Sessions   Judge acquitted the appellant but in further appeal to High  Court the  appellant  was again convicted.  He  appealed  to  this Court  by special leave.  The contentions on behalf  of  the appellant  were : (i) that Shakkar is not jaggery and  since no standard of quality has been prescribed for Shakkar under the  rules  framed  under  the  Act  the  Shakkar  was   not adulterated; (ii) that he had not kept the Shakkar for  sale but  for  manufacturing  Rab out of  it  and  therefore  the convicion  under  s. 16 read with section 7 of The  Act  was bad. HELD  :  (i)  Shakkar is a  product  obtained  by  following processing juce pressed from out of sugar cane and therefore in  view  of the definition of jaggery in  para  A.07.05  of Appendix  B  of the rules framed under the  Act  Shakkar  is jaggery.   In  Chambers  20th  Century  Dictionary  (revised edition)  also  the  Hindi equivalent of  jaggery  given  as Shakkar.   Therefore  the finding of the High Court  on  the basis of the report of the Analyst that the Shakkar did  not conform  to the standard of quality prescribed  for  jaggery and  was  thus  adulterated  was  correct  and  had  to   be maintained. [353 B-F] (2)  The finding of the High Court was that the Shakkar  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

kept  by the appellant for the purpose of sale and  not  for the  purpose  of manufacturing Rab out of it  and  that  the attempt  of  the  appellant was to sell the  Shakkar  as  an article of food after mixing Shelkhari in it.  There was  no reason  to think that the finding was wrong.   But  assuming that  the finding was wrong and that the appellant kept  the Shakkar  not for sale, but for manufacturing Rab out of  it, the  appellant  would still be guilty.  If  Shakkar  is  an article  of food, it does not matter whether  the  appellant kept  it,  for  sale  or for manufacturing  Rab  out  of  it provided the appellant bad sold it.  And a sale to the  Food Inspector is a sale for the purpose of 16(1) of the Act. [C- D] The  Food  Inspector, Calicut  Corporation  v,  Charukanttil Gopalan  and  another,  [1971] 2 S.C.R.  322,  followed  and applied. The appeal must accordingly be dismissed. 351

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 253  of 1968. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  Order  dated April 12, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Govt. Appeal  No. 13 of 1965 and Criminal Govt.  Appeal No. 10  of 1966. B.   P. Maheshwari and Sobhagmal Jain, for the appellant. O.   P. Rana, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mathew,  J.  This appeal , by special leave,  is  against  a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad by which it restored the  order of the Magistrate convicting the appellant of  an offence  under  section  16  read with  section  7.  of  the Prevention  of  Food  Adulteration Act  (Act  37  of  1954), hereinafter  called the ’Act, and sentencing him to  undergo one  year’s  rigorous  imprisonment and pay a  fine  of  Rs. 1,000/-  and  in  default  of payment  of  fine  to  undergo rigorous  imprisonment for a further period of  six  months, after  reversing the order passed by the Sessions  Judge  in appeal acquitting him of the offence. On  June 13, 1963, Head Constable Baboo Khan was  on  patrol duty.   He  happened  to come to the  Chakki  of  one  Abdul Razaaq.  There he found a heap of Shakkar and some labourers mixing Shelkhari in it with spades.  He went to the police station  to  inform  the Station Officer about  it  but  the Station  Officer’ was not there.  He then met  the  Sanitary Inspector and informed him about what he, saw at the Chakki. The  Sanitary  Inspector accompanied by the  Food  Inspector proceeded to the Chakki and there, they found the  labourers mixing  Shelkhari  with  Shakkar.   The  stock  of   Shakkar belonged to the appellant.  The Food Inspector purchased  1- 1/2  seers  of Shakkar from the appellant by way  of  sample after  paying its price.  He divided the sample  into  three parts, gave one to the appellant and retained the other  two with  him.   One  of the samples retained was  sent  to  the Public  Analyst for examination.  The Analyst found, in  his report dated July 11, 1963, that the Shakkar contained  2.4% moisture,  72.7% total sugar, 64.7% sucrose, 17%  extraneous matter insoluble in water.  According to him the  extraneous matter  insoluble in water, total ash and ash  insoluble  in Hydrochloric  acid  exceeded  by  15,O%,  10.1%  and   13.3% respectively as against the maximum prescribed standards  of 2.0%, 6.0% and O.5% respectively.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

On  the basis of a complaint filed by the Food Inspector  of the  Municipal Board, Saharanpur, the Magistrate  who  tried the ap- 352 pellant for an offence under section 16 read with section  7 of  the  Act came to the conclusion that the  appellant  had stored  the  Shakkar for sale, that it was  adulterated  and that  he  was  guilty  of  the  offence  and  convicted  and sentenced him as aforesaid. The  appellant filed an appeal against the order before  the Sessions  Judge.   The Sessions Judge acquitted him  of  the offence   for the reason that the prosecution had notproved ’that the Shakkar stored by the appellant was for sale.He said that the  appellant  was mixing extraneous matter  with the Shakkar for     converting  it into Rab and as  such  it cannotbe said that the    Shakkar was stored for sale by the appellant.He also said that   no  standard  of  quality was prescribed by therules  framed  under  the  Act  for Shakkar,  that  as an article of food, Shakkar  was  neither ’gur’ nor ’Jaggery’ and that the sale of Shakkar to the Food Inspector  by the appellant was under duress and was  not  a sale in the eye of the law.  The  Municipal Board filed an appeal against the  order  to the High Court.  The High Court held that Shakkar is same as ’jaggery’, that standard ’of quality has been prescribed  by the rules framed under the Act for jaggery, that the Shakkar in  question was adulterated, that the sample  purchased  by the  Food Inspector for the purpose of analysis amounted  to sale within the meaning of section 2 (xiii) of the Act, that Food  Inspector  had power under the Act to get  the  sample even  if the Shakkar was stored for being manufactured  into Rab  and  not  for  sale  and  restored  the  order  of  the Magistrate  convicting  and  sentencing  the  appellant   as aforesaid. The  first  contention on behalf of the appellant  was  that Shakkar  is not ’jaggery’, and since no standard of  quality has been prescribed for Shakkar under the rules formed under the Act, the Shakkar was not adulterated. We  find it difficult to accept the contention that  Shakkar is  not  Jaggery.  Para A.07.05 of Appendix B of  the  Rules reads               "Gur or jaggery means the product obtained  by               boiling  or  processing juice pressed  out  of               sugar  cane  or extracted from  palmyra  palm,               date  palm or coconut palm.  It shall be  free               from  substances  deleterious  to  health  and               shall  conform  to  the  following  analytical               standards on dry weight basis               (i)total  sugars not less than 90 per  cent               and sucrose not less than 70 per cent.               (ii)  extraneous matter insoluble in water not               more than 2 per cent.               3 5 3               (iii)total ash not more than 6 per cent.               (iv)  ash insoluble in hydrochloric acid (HCI)               not more than O.5 per cent.               Gur  or jaggery other than that of the  liquid               or semi-liquid variety shall not contain  more               than 10 per cent moisture." It  is  not disputed that Shakkar is a product  obtained  by boiling or processing _juice pressed from out of  sugarcane, and  therefore,  it is clear that Shakkar is  jaggery.   But counsel  for the appellant submitted that Appendix B of  the Rules does not define jaggery but only gives the description of what ’jaggery’ is and it cannot, therefore, be said  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

jaggery  would  comprehend  all the  varieties  of  products obtained  by  boiling or processing _juice  pressed  out  of sugarcane.  In other words, counsel said that Appendix B  to the Rules only describes what jaggery or gur is and that  it does  not define what jaggery or gur is.  We are  unable  to accept the contention for the reason that jaggery or gur  is defined  as  any product obtained by boiling  or  processing juice  pressed  out  of  sugarcane and  so  any  product  so obtained  would be comprehend within the definition.   Quite apart  from  this,  we find in  Chambers  Twentieth  Century Dictionary (Revised Edition) the meaning of ’jaggery’ as : "A  coarse  dark  sugar made from  palm  sap  or  otherwise. (Hindi-Shakkar; Sanskrit-Sarkara)." It  is, therefore, clear that Shakkar is ’jaggery’; and  the finding of the High Court, on the basis of the report of the Analyst, that the Shakkar has not conformed to the  standard of  quality prescribed for jaggery and, therefore, the  food was adulterated, was correct and has to be maintained. The second contention on behalf of the appellant was that he had  kept the Shakkar for manufacturing Rab out of it.   The contention,  in  other words, is that he had  not  kept  the Shakkar for sale but kept it for manufacturing Rab out of it and,  therefore, the conviction under section 16  read  with section 7 of the Act was bad.  We do not think that there is any  substance in this contention either.  Section 7 of  the Act, in so far as it is material, Provides               "No  person shall himself or by any person  on               his  behalf  manufacture for sale,  or  store,               sell or distribute-               354               (i) any adulterated food;"               Section  16, which imposes the punishment,  in               so far as it is relevant, says :               " 16 (1) If any person-               (a)whether  by  himself or  by  any  other               person  on  his behalf imports into  India  or               manufactures  for  sale, or stores,  sells  or               distributes any article of food-               (i)   which  is adulterated or  misbranded  or               the  sale of which is prohibited by  the  Food               (Health)  authority in the interest of  public               health;" The  finding of the High Court is that the Shakkar was  kept by  the  appellant for the purpose of sale and not  for  the purpose of manufacturing Rab out of it and that the  attempt of  the appellant was to sell the Shakkar as an article,  of food  after mixing Shelkhari with it.  We see no  reason  to think  that  the finding was wrong.  But assuming  that  the finding  was wrong and that the appellant kept  the  Shakkar was  for  sale  but for manufacturing Rab out  of  it,  what follows  ?  If Shakkar is an article of food,  it  does  not matter  whether  the  appellant kept it  for  sale,  or  for manufacturing Rab out of it, provided the appellant has sold it.   Arid  a sale to the Food Inspector is a sale  for  the purpose  of section 16 of the Act.  In The  Food  Inspector, Calicut  Corporation v. Charukattil Gapalan  and  another(), this  Court held that, if any articles of food are  sold  by any  person, whether he be a dealer in them or not,  and  if the food is adulterated, he is liable to be convicted  under section 16 read with section 7 of the Act.  The  respondents before this Court in that case were the manager and owner of a  tea stall.  The case against them was that they sold  600 grains  of sugar to the appellant, the Food  Inspector,  for analysis   and   that  the  sugar  was   adulterated.    The respondents pleaded that the sugar was not sold ’as such’ in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

the  tea  stall and was only used for  preparing  tea  which alone  was  sold.   The plea was accepted  by  the  District Magistrate   and  the  respondents  were   acquitted.    The acquittal  was  confirmed by the High Court.  In  appeal  to this  Court by the Food Inspector, one of the arguments  for the respondents, was that they were not dealers in sugar and the  sugar  was  not kept for sale and  so  they  cannot  be convicted  under section 16 read with section 7 of the  Act. The Court held, inter-alia, that sale to a Food Inspector is a  sale for the purpose of section 16 of the Act,  that  the article  of  food sold to the Food Inspector need  not  have been  taken from a larger quantity kept for sale,  and  that the person by whom the article of food was sold to the  Food Inspector need not be a dealer as such in the article. (1)  [1971] 2 S.C.C.322. 355 In that case it was assumed by this Court that the sugar was adulterated.  Whether it was adulterated or not as a  matter of fact, this _Court proceeded on the assumption that it was adulterated.  it that be so, we see no reason to  doubt  the correctness of the ratio of the case. We  think  the High Court was right in its  conclusion.   We dismiss the appeal. G.C.                              Appeal dismissed. 356