http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: CHARANJI LAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT25/10/1983

BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) MADON, D.P.

CITATION:  1984 AIR   80            1984 SCR  (1) 513  1984 SCC  (1) 329        1983 SCALE  (2)642

ACT:      Prevention of  Food Adulteration  Act, 1954-Proviso  to sub-s. (2C)  of s.  13 -Words-Lost  or damaged-Appearing  in proviso-Interpretation of.  Lost-Not confined  to loss  only after actual  despatch of  sample but  includes  loss  after court order  for despatch of sample. Damage-means damage due to any  reason including  decomposition taking  place either before or after order of the court.

HEADNOTE:      Interpretation  of   statute-Rule  of-Words   used   by legislature do not always bear a plain meaning.      Words and phrases-Damage-Meaning of. ^      A Food Inspector took a sample of kutcha khoya from the shop of the appellant and after dividing it into three equal parts and  sealing them, sent one part to the public analyst and the  other two parts to the Local (Health) Authority. On analysis  the   public  analyst   found  the  sample  to  be adulterated, but  the fat content of the sample was reported to be  25%. Prosecution  was launched  against the appellant under the  Prevention of  Food Adulteration  Act,  1954.  On appellant’s request under sub-s. (2) of s. 13 of the Act the trial court  sent one  of the  remaining two  parts  of  the sample to  the Director,  Central Food  Laboratory, Calcutta for purposes  of analysis  under sub-s.  (2B). The  Director intimated that the sample received by him was decomposed and therefore unfit  for analysis and asked for the counter-part of the  sample. After a period of six months the trial court forwarded the  remaining part of the sample to the Director, Central Food  Laboratory, Ghaziabad  who reported  that  the sample was  adulterated, but  found that  the fat content of the  sample  was  33.12%.  The  trial  court  acquitted  the appellant. On  appeal by  the State the High Court convicted the appellant.  The questions  which arose  in  this  appeal were: (i)  whether the  part of the sample sent by the trial court to  the Director, Central Food Laboratory Calcutta was damaged within  the meaning  of proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13 of  the Act and (ii) whether the katcha khoya sold by the appellant was  adulterated within  the meaning  of s. 2 (ia) (1) of the Act.      Partly allowing  the appeal  and partly  remitting  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

matter to the High Court, ^      HELD :  The problem  of interpretation  is a problem of meaning of  words and  their effectiveness  to communicate a particular thought.  In all  ordinary  cases  primarily  the language employed  is the determining factor, but words used by the  Legislature do  not always  bear  a  plain  meaning. [520H; 521A] 514      The word  "damaged" in  the collocation  of  the  words "lost or damaged" appearing in the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13  in relation  to the  part of  the sample  sent by the court to  the Director  of the Central Food Laboratory must, in the  context, mean  "damaged due  to any cause, including decomposition". The  word "damaged"  must  be  construed  in furtherance of  the object  and  purpose  of  inserting  the provisions. The whole purpose of depositing two parts of the sample with  the Local  (Health) Authority is that if one of the parts  of the  sample is  lost or damaged for any reason whatever the  remaining part  may  still  be  available  for analysis. [522 E; G-H]      State v. Joginder Lal Kapoor, (1980) 1 FAC 86 approved.      Ram Prakash  v. State  of Himachal  Pradesh (1979) Crl. L.J. 750 and Darshan Lal v. State of Punjab (1982) 1 FAC 290 overruled.      It is  not necessary  that the loss contemplated by the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13 should take place only after the actual despatch of the part of the sample to the Central Food Laboratory  has commenced.  Even if  that part  of  the sample is  lost after  the court  has directed it to be sent and before  the actual  transit has  commenced, that part of the sample would be "lost" within the meaning of the proviso to sub  s. (2C)  of s.  13. So far as damage in the sense of decomposition of that part of the sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory  is concerned,  it  may  take  place  either before or  after the  Court  directs  its  despatch  to  the Central  Food   Laboratory.  If   damage  in  the  sense  of decomposition were  to be  interpreted to mean decomposition taking  place   during  the  course  of  transit,  it  would frustrate the  very object  of Parliament  in  enacting  the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13. [524 B-D]      State v. Joginder Lal Kapoor (1980) 1 FAC 86 overruled.      In the instant case there are certain aspects which are rather disturbing. It is not clear as to how the fat content of the  same article  of food the sample of which, according to the  report of  the Public  Analyst was  25% went  up  to 33.12% as  appears from  the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory,  Ghaziabad dated  December 7,1978. Further, it is also not clear that when the fat content of the sample was 33.12%  and the  R.M. Value  of the  extracted  fat  was 20.37%, still  the Director  on analysis found the sample to be adulterated  Was it  due to the presence of any substance not found  in milk like sesame oil (til oil) as found by the Public Analyst, Chandigarh or was it that there was a higher fat content  prescribed for khoya for the State of Punjab as appears from  the appended  note to  the report  ? These are some of the aspects which require investigation. There is no other alternative  but to remit the matter to the High Court for a decision a fresh.[526 D-F]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION :  Criminal Appeal No. 462 of 1983.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

    Appeal by  Special leave  from the  Judgment and  Order dated the  5th March,  1980 of  the Punjab  and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 525 DBA of 1980. 515      P.P. Rao, R. Venkataramani and A. Mariaaputham, for the Appellant.      S.K. Bagga for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      SEN, J.  This  appeal  by  special  leave  is  directed against the  judgment and  sentence of  the Punjab & Haryana High Court  dated March  3, 1982 by which the High Court has set aside  the order  of acquittal  recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First  Class, Moga  dated  March  14,  1980  and convicted the  appellant under  s. 7 read with s. 16 (i) (a) (i) of  the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (‘Act’ for  short)   and  sentenced   him   to   undergo   rigorous imprisonment for  a period  of six  months and  fine of  Rs. 1000/-, and  in default, rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.      The questions  in this  appeal are, firstly, a question of law  as to  whether the  word ‘damaged’  appearing in the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13 of the Act is susceptible of a wider  construction as  to include damage due to any cause including decomposition;  and secondly  a mixed  question of fact and  law, as  to whether  the kutcha  khoya sold by the appellant  was   ‘adulterated’  i.e.   not  of  the  nature, substance or quality prescribed by law.      The relevant  facts are  these. The  appellant  runs  a sweetmeat shop  at Sadar Bazar, Moga. On January 3, 1978 Dr. Paramjit Singh,  Medical Officer,  R.D.  Ramnagar,  district Faridkot, PW  2 along  with Dr. Narinder Kumar, PW 3 visited the shop  of the appellant, disclosed his identity as a Food Inspector and  demanded 750  grammes  of  kutcha  khoya  for analysis and  purchased the same. The Food Inspector divided the kutcha  khoya so  purchased into  three equal parts, put them into  three polythene  packs  and  added  18  drops  of formalin to each. The polythene packs were wrapped, labelled and sealed  as required under s. 11 (1) (b). One part of the sample was sent by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh and the remaining two parts to the Local (Health) Authority, Faridkot  as required by cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) of s. 11 for purposes of sub-s. (2) thereof and sub-s. (2A) and (2E) of  s. 13. The Public Analyst, Chandigarh by his report dated February  3, 1978  found the  sample to be adulterated with sesame oil (til oil) besides being insect 516 infested. The  fat content  of the sample was reported to be 25%. On  the basis  of the report of the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector  lodged a  complaint  against  the  appellant before the  Judicial  Magistrate,  First  Class,  Moga.  The appellant entered  appearance and  duly exercised  his right under sub-s.  (2) of  s. 13. The learned Magistrate sent one of the  two parts  of the  sample to  the  Director  of  the Central Food  Laboratory, Calcutta  for purposes of analysis under sub  s. (2B)  and the  remaining  part  to  the  Local (Health) Authority as required under sub-s. (2C) of s. 13 of the Act.  The Director  by his  letter  dated  May  2,  1978 intimated that the sample received by him was decomposed and therefore unfit for analysis and added that the counter-part of the  sample may  be sent  to him immediately for analysis and report.  It appears  that for  a period  of  six  months apparently nothing  was  done.  On  November  10,  1978  the learned Magistrate  forwarded  the  remaining  part  of  the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad for purposes  of  analysis.  The  report  of  the  Director,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

Central Food  Laboratory, Ghaziabad  dated December  7, 1978 revealed that  the sample  was adulterated.  The fat content was however  stated to be 33.12% with a note added that "the extracted fat of 20.37% did not comply with the standards of milk fat  for the State of Punjab". At the conclusion of the arguments, an  application was  made by  the prosecution for clarification to  be sought  from the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad  since the  report was  not clear, The learned Magistrate  however  rejected  the  application  and proceeded to  judgment. He  held that the certificate of the Director, Central  Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad had the effect of superseding  the report of the Public Analyst, Chandigarh under sub-s.  (3) of  s. 13  and therefore  it could  not be looked into.  He further  relied  upon  a  decision  of  the Himachal Pradesh  High Court  in Ram  Prakash  v.  State  of Himachal Pradesh(1)  and held  that the  certificate of  the Director, Central  Food Laboratory, Calcutta that the sample had become unfit for analysis had become final and therefore there was  no occasion for sending the remaining part of the sample to  the Director,  Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad for analysis.  He also  held that  even  assuming  that  the sample  sent  to  the  Director,  Central  Food  Laboratory, Calcutta had  become ‘damaged’ within the meaning of proviso to sub-s.  (2C) of  s. 13  and therefore he could proceed in the manner  provided by  sub-s.  (2B),  the  report  of  the Director, Central  Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad showed the fat content to be 33.12% i.e. in 517 excess over the minimum standard of 20% for khoya prescribed under the rules and therefore the khoya could not be treated to be  adulterated. In  this view,  the  learned  Magistrate acquitted the  appellant of  the charge under s. 7 read with s. 16 (i) (a) (i) of the Act.      On appeal  preferred by  the State Government, the High Court disagreed  with the view taken by the Himachal Pradesh High Court  in Ram  Prakash’s case,  supra, and held that it was not permissible to put a narrow construction on the word ‘damaged’ used in proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13. According to the  High Court, a sample may be ‘lost or damaged’ within the meaning  of proviso  to sub-s.  (2C) of  s. 13  while in transit due  to contamination  or for  various other reasons and therefore  if another  part of the sample was available, it could still be examined afresh. Further, it observed that the remaining  part of  the sample was sent to the Director, Central Food  Laboratory, Ghaziabad for analysis without any objection by the appellant nor had any prejudice been caused to him.  The High  Court dealt with the evidence and relying upon the  testimony of  Dr. Paramjit  Singh, PW  2  and  Dr. Narinder Kumar,  PW 3  held that  the appellant  had sold an article of  adulterated food  and was therefore guilty of an offence punishable under s. 7 read with s. 16 (i) (a) (i) of the Act and sentenced him as above.      In this  appeal, two  questions are  involved, namely : (1) Whether  the part  of the  sample sent  by  the  learned Magistrate  to   the  Director,   Central  Food  Laboratory, Calcutta was ‘damaged’ within the meaning of proviso to sub- s. (2C)  of s. 13 of the Act to enable him to proceed in the manner provided  in sub-s.  (2B) i.e.  forward the remaining part of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad; and  (2) Whether  the kutcha  khoya sold  by  the appellant was  adulterated within  the meaning  of s. 2 (ia) (1) of the Act.      To appreciate  the contentions  raised, it is necessary to  set   out  the   relevant  provisions.   The  expression ‘adulterated’ is  defined in  s. 2 (ia) (1) of the Act which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

reads :           "2. Definitions  : In  this Act unless the context      otherwise requires,-           (ia) "adulterated"-an article  of  food  shall  be                deemed to be adulterated- 518           (1)  if the quality or purity of the article falls                below  the   prescribed   standard   or   its                constituents are  present in  quantities  not                within the  prescribed limits of variability,                which renders it injurious to health." Sub-ss. (2B) and (2C) of s. 13 of the Act provide as follows :           "(2B) :  On receipt  of the  part or  parts of the      sample from  the Local  (Health) Authority  under  sub-      section (2A),  the court shall first ascertain that the      mark and seal or fastening as provided in clause (b) of      sub-section (1)  of  Section  11  are  intact  and  the      signature or  thumb-impression, as  the case may be, is      not tampered  with, and  despatch the  part or,  as the      case may  be, one  of the parts of the sample under its      own seal to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory      who shall  thereupon send a certificate to the court in      the prescribed  from within  one month from the date of      receipt of the part of the sample specifying the result      of the analysis."           "(2C) :  Where two  parts of  the sample have been      sent to  the court  and only one part of the sample has      been sent  by the  court to the Director of the Central      Food  Laboratory  under  sub-section  (2B),  the  court      shall, as  soon as  possible, return the remaining part      to the  Local (Health)  Authority  and  that  Authority      shall destroy  that part after the certificate from the      Director  of  the  Central  Food  Laboratory  has  been      received by the court :           Provided that where the part of the sample sent by      the  court   to  the   Director  of  the  Central  Food      Laboratory is  lost or damaged, the court shall require      the Local (Health) Authority to forward the part of the      sample, if  any, retained  by it  to the  court and  on      receipt thereof,  the court shall proceed in the manner      provided in subsection (2B)."      The question  is whether  the kutcha  khoya sold by the appellant was  not of the nature, substance or quality which it purported  or represented  to be.  Sub-s. (1)  of  s.  23 confers powers on the Central Government, after consultation with the Central Committee for Food 519 Standards constituted under s. 4, to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, sub-s. (1A) enacts that such  rules may  provide for  all or any of the matters enumerated therein. One of the subjects upon which rules can be made is defining the standards of quality for, and fixing the limits  of variability  permissible in  respect of,  any article of  food. In  exercise of the powers conferred by s. 23 of  the Act, the Central Government framed the Prevention of Food  Adulteration Rules,  1955 (‘Rules’ for short). R. 5 of the  Rules provides  that the standards of quality of the various articles  of food specified in Appendix to the Rules shall be as defined therein. Standards of quality and limits of variability fixed by the Central Government in Appendix B are not  subject to  alteration or  variation by the courts. Definitions of  milk of  various descriptions  for  each  of which standards  have been  laid down are in A. 11.01. There

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

is a  separate provision  made with regard to milk products. A.11.02 defines  milk products  obtained from  milk such  as cream malai,  curd, skimmed milk curd, chhanna, skimmed milk chhanna etc.  and includes  khoya. A.11.02.01  contains  the following prescription :           "Milk products  specified in  Appendix B shall not      contain  any   substance  not   found  in  milk  unless      specified in the standards." A.11.02.17 prescribes the standards of quality for khoya and it reads:           "Khoya means  the product  obtained  from  cow  or      buffalo or  goat or sheep milk or a combination thereof      by rapid drying. The milk fat content shall not be less      than 20 per cent of the finished product."      It appears that the attention of the High Court was not drawn to the finding reached by the learned Magistrate based on the  report of  the Director,  Central  Food  Laboratory, Ghaziabad. It  revealed the  fat content of the sample to be 33.12% and R.M. value of extracted fat to be 2037% i.e. more than the  minimum prescribed  standard of  20% under item A. 11.02.17 of  Appendix B to the Rules. The High Court has not touched upon  the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate that the  article of  food was  not adulterated and that the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad 520 could not  form the  basis for conviction. True it is, under proviso to  sub-s. (5)  of s. 13 of the Act, the certificate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad is final and conclusive  evidence of the facts stated therein, and it states that  the sample was ‘adulterated’. At the same time, the fat  content in  the report was shown to be in excess of the minimum  fat content  prescribed under  item A. 11.02.17 with a note appended that ‘the extracted fat content did not comply with  the standards  of milk  fat for  the  State  of Punjab’. There  is no  material on  record to  show that any separate fat  content for  khoya has  been prescribed  under item A.  11.02.17 for  the State  of Punjab. We gave time to learned counsel  for  the  State  to  enlighten  us  on  the subject, but  he has  not been  able to  place on record any notification  issued  by  the  Central  Government  in  that behalf. The contention is that unless the khoya was found to be adulterated  within the  meaning of  s. 2 (ia) (1) of the Act, the  appellant could  not obviously  be  convicted  for having committed  an offence punishable under s. 7 read with s. 16 (i) (a) (i) of the Act.      There are  certain aspects of the case which are rather disturbing. It is not clear as to how the fat content of the same article  of food  the sample of which, according to the report of  the Public  Analyst, Chandigarh dated February 3, 1978 was  25%, went  up to 33.12% as appears from the report of the  Director, Central  Food Laboratory,  Ghaziabad dated December 7,  1978. Further,  it is  also not clear that when the fat  content of the sample was 33.12% and the R.M. value of the  extracted fat  was 20.37%,  still  the  Director  on analysis found  the sample  to be adulterated. Was it due to the presence  of any substance not found in milk like sesame oil (til  oil) as found by the Public Analyst, Chandigarh or was it  that there  was a  higher fat content prescribed for khoya for  the State  of Punjab as appears from the appended note  ?   These  are  some  of  the  aspects  which  require investigation. There  is no  other alternative  but to remit the matter to the High Court for a decision afresh. The High Court may  call  for  a  clarification  from  the  Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, or take such other steps as it deems fit.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

    Turning now to the main question as to the real meaning of the  word "damaged" which occurs in the proviso to sub-s. (2C)  of  s.  13  of  the  Act,  it  must  be  construed  in furtherance of the intention of the Legislature. The problem of interpretation is a problem of meaning of words and their effectiveness to  communicate a  particular thought.  In all ordinary cases primarily the language employed is 521 the determining factor, but words used by the Legislature do not always  bear a  plain meaning.  The word  "damaged" must take its  colour from  the context  in which  it appears. It will be  seen that  the word "damaged" in the collocation of the words "lost or damaged" appears both in sub-s. (2) of s. 11 and  in the  proviso to  sub-s. (2C)  of s.  13 and it is therefore necessary  to ascertain  the purpose and object of inserting these  provisions, and  the mischief  sought to be avoided by  the Legislature. It is necessary to keep in view the fact that Act 34 of 1976 has changed the whole procedure of taking  samples for  purposes of  analysis. These changes have been brought about by Parliament with a view to prevent certain malpractices. It is clearly plain from the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Bill to amend the Act that these provisions  are intended  and meant  to check the Food Inspectors  from   indulging  in   corrupt  practices.   The procedure prescribed  under the  Act prior  to the amendment was that  a Food  Inspector was  under an obligation to give one of  the parts  of the sample to the person from whom the sample was  taken, send  another part to the Public Analyst, and retain  the third  part for production in case any legal proceedings were  taken, or  for analysis by the Director of the Central  Food Laboratory, as the case may be. Experience in the  past showed that after a Food Inspector had sent one part of the sample for analysis, the remaining part i.e. one given to  the vendor,  and the  other  kept  with  the  Food Inspector, were  usually tampered with, with the result that prosecutions under  s. 7  read with s. 16 (i) (a) (i) of the Act  invariably   failed  because   of  the  breach  of  the provisions of  sub-s. (2) of s. 13 of the Act which entitles the accused to have the remaining part of the sample sent to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for analysis.      It is  pertinent to observe that along with the changes brought about  in s.  11 dealing  with the  procedure to  be followed by  a Food Inspector, a new s. 13 has been inserted by Act  34 of  1976. After  the amendment  when a  sample of article of  food is  taken, there is a duty cast upon a Food Inspector under  s. 11  (1) (c) (i) to send one of the three parts of the sample for analysis to the Public Analyst under intimation to  the Local (Health) Authority. Under s. 11 (3) he must  do so by the immediately succeeding working day. He is further  required under  s. 11  (1) (c)  (ii) to send the remaining two  parts to the Local (Health) Authority for the purpose of being utilized under sub-s. (2) of s. 11, or sub- ss. (2A)  and (2E)  of s.  13, also  not later  than by  the succeeding working day under r. 17 (b). 522 Under sub-s.  (2) of s. 11, if the sample sent to the Public Analyst it  lost or damaged, the Local (Health) Authority is empowered, on  a requisition  made by  the Public Analyst or the Food  Inspector, to  despatch one  of the  parts of  the sample sent to it under s. 11 (1) (c) (ii) for analysis.      Under the scheme of the Act, the remaining two parts of the sample  are kept  with the  Local (Health)  Authority in order that in case the part of the sample sent to the Public Analyst under  s. 11  (1) (c) (i) is lost or damaged, or one of the  remaining two  parts of the sample sent by the Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

to the  Director of the Central Food Laboratory under sub-s. (2B) of  s. 13  is lost  or damaged,  the remaining  part or parts are  preserved for  further  analysis  by  the  Public Analyst, or  the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, as the case  may be.  It would be seen that the phrase ‘lost or damaged’ appears  both in  sub-s. (2)  of s.  11 and  in the proviso to  sub-s. (2C)  of s. 13, and these provisions have been inserted by Parliament with a definite object.      The word  "damaged" in  the collocation  of  the  words "lost or damaged" appearing in the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13  in relation  to the  part of  the sample  sent by the court to  the Director  of the Central Food Laboratory must, in the  context, mean  "damaged due  to any cause, including decomposition". The  part of the sample sent by the Court to the Director  of  the  Central  Food  Laboratory  under  the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13 may be either damaged due to the container  not being properly sealed or fastened, or due to various other causes including breakage of the container, or because  decomposition has occurred, or it may be lost in transit. The  word "damaged" in the collocation of the words "lost or  damaged" occurring  in sub-s.  (2) of s. 11 and in the proviso  to sub-s.  (2C) of  s. 13  must be construed in furtherance of  the object  and purpose  of inserting  these provisions. The whole purpose of depositing two parts of the sample with  the Local  (Health) Authority is that if one of the parts  of the  sample is  lost or damaged for any reason whatever, the  remaining part  may still  be  available  for analysis.      There is  a conflict of opinion between the High Courts and also  within the  same High Court as to the construction of the word 523 "damaged" used in the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13 of the Act, some  of which  we have  been able  to trace  out.  The Punjab &  Haryana High  Court has  itself taken two contrary views, one in the instant case, and the other in Darshan Lal v. State of Punjab(1). The view of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Ram Prakash’s case, supra, and that of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Darshan Lal’s case, supra, is that the meaning of  the word  "damaged" occurring  in the proviso to sub-s. (2C)  of s.  13 must be controlled by the context and it means  "damaged due  to the  container not being properly sealed or  fastened". The  view to  the  contrary  has  been expressed by  the Delhi  High Court in State v. Joginder Lal Kapoor(2) and  by the  Punjab &  Haryana High  Court in  the present case  that the  word "damaged"  used in  the proviso must be  given a wider meaning as to include "damaged due to any  cause,   including  decomposition".   In  Joginder  Lal Kapoor’s case,  supra the Delhi High Court observed that the loss or damage contemplated in the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13  of the  Act must occur after the sample is despatched for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, and added:           "A sample  can get damaged for a number of reasons      including  breakage,  Leakage  and  decomposition.  The      possibility of  a sample  getting decomposed because of      delay in  transit cannot  to ruled  out. In my view the      word "damage"  used in  sub-s. (2C)  has to  be given a      wider meaning and it would include damage of any nature      including decomposition but the damage must occur after      the sample is despatched."      In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, 3rd edn., p. 710, para 9, it is stated: "You ‘damage’ a thing if you render it imperfect or inoperative". Decomposition would render a  sample useless and of no value for analysis. While the Delhi  High Court  is right  in holding  in Joginder Lal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

Kapoor’s case, supra, that the word "damaged" used in sub-s. (2C) has to be given a wider meaning, it is not possible for us to subscribe to the view that the loss or damage 524 must occur  after the  sample is  despatched for analysis to the Central  Food Laboratory.  We are inclined to think that the word  "damaged" is  wide enough  to mean "damaged due to any cause  whatever, including  decomposition". To  restrict the meaning  of the  phrase ‘lost  or damaged’  would be  to defeat the  object for  which the  new s. 13 was inserted by Parliament by  Act 34 of 1976. It is not necessary that loss should take place only after the actual despatch of the part of the  sample to the Central Food Laboratory has commenced. From the  nature of  things, the  loss contemplated  by  the proviso to  sub-s. (2C)  of s.  13 must take place after the court has  directed one  part of the sample to be despatched to the  Central Food  Laboratory, but  the  course  of  such despatch is  not required  to be  confined to  the period of actual transit.  Even if  that part  of the  sample is  lost after the  court has  directed it to be sent to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory and before the actual transit has commenced,  that part  of the  sample  would  be  "lost" within the  meaning of  the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13. So far  as  the  damage  to  that  part  of  the  sample  is concerned, if  damage in  the sense of decomposition were to be interpreted to mean decomposition taking place during the course of  transit, it  would frustrate  the very  object of Parliament in  enacting the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13. Decomposition is  not something  which  always  takes  place suddenly or immediately. It is a process which in some cases may be slow and in some cases quick. Decomposition cannot be noticed or  ascertained by  the Court  when it  inspects the part of  the sample  under sub-s. (2B) of s. 13 to ascertain whether the  mark and  seal or  fastening are intact and the signature or  thumb-impression, as  the  case  may  be,  not tempered with,  before despatching  that part to the Central Food Laboratory. Even with the mark and seal intact, and the signature or  thumb-impression, as  the  case  may  be,  not tampered with,  the sample  might have already decomposed or decomposing might  have already  commenced. Whether a sample has decomposed  or not  can only  be  ascertained  when  the sealed container  is opened  in the  Central Food Laboratory for the  purpose of analysis. Thus, while from the nature of things loss or external damage to the sample must take place after the  Court directs under sub-s. (2B) of s. 13 despatch of  the   part  of  the  sample,  damage  in  the  sense  of decomposition of that part of the sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory  may take  place either  before or after the Courts directs  its despatch to the Central Food Laboratory. In either  event, that part of the sample would be "damaged" within the meaning of that expression in the proviso to sub- s. (2C) of s. 13 of the Act. 525      With these observations, the appeal partly succeeds and is allowed.  The judgment  and sentence  passed by  the High Court are  set aside  and the appeal is remanded to the High Court  for   a  decision   afresh  with  advertence  to  the observations made above. H.S.K.                                Appeal partly allowed. 526