http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1096 of 1999

PETITIONER: Dinesh Kumar

RESPONDENT: State of M.P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/10/2004

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K. THAKKER

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Appellant faced trial for alleged commission of offence  punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the  Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the ’Act’).  While  the trial Court acquitted him, Madhya Pradesh High Court by the  impugned judgment upset it.  

Factual position as projected by prosecution in nutshell is as  follows:

       S.B. Dubey (PW-1) was appointed by the Government as Food  Inspector.  The accused Dinesh Kumar was having a kirana shop at Itava  Road, Bhind. He used to sell Besan.  On 29.3.1988 at about 3.00 p.m.  the said Food Inspector went to his shop and inspected the articles and  suspecting adulteration took a sample of Besan.  He prepared Form No.6  and thereafter 750 gms. of Besan was taken before the witnesses and  Rs.4.50/- being the price was given to the accused and receipt was  obtained. The sample was divided into three equal parts and he sealed  it in separate containers. Panchnama (Ex.P-4) was prepared on the spot.   One sample was sent to Public Analyst, Bhopal and remaining two were  deposited in the office of Local Health Officer.  A report (Ex.P-8) was  received and it was found that Besan was adulterated, on the basis of  which a complaint was filed. The accused was charged under Section 7(1)  read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act.  He denied the charge, but  claimed that on the date of occurrence the Food Inspector went to his  shop and demanded Besan, but Besan was not at his shop and hence be  brought from the neighbouring flour mill which, had come there for  grinding. The sample was taken of that Besan. The prosecution examined  Vimal Kumar Jain as (PW-2), beside S.B. Dubey (PW-1).  Besides, it  relied upon the documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10.  After considering the  entire material on record and hearing the parties the accused was  acquitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The State of M.P.  filed an appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench.   By the impugned judgment a learned Single Judge of the High Court held  that the appellant has contravened relevant provisions of the Act and  was, therefore, to be convicted.  Reference was made to Rule 44A of the  Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short ’the Rules’) and  it was observed that sale of Kesari dal in any form was forbidden and  even though the ash content was within permissible limit, accused- appellant was to be convicted for violation of Rule 44A of the Rules.   Accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment of six months and  to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

       In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the accused-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

appellant submitted that the occurrence took place on 29.3.1988, and at  that point of time Rule 44A was not in operation in the State of the  Madhya Pradesh and, therefore, the conviction as recorded is not  maintainable.

       Learned counsel for the State, however, supported the judgment  submitting that sale of Kesari dal in any form is prohibited and,  therefore, the mixture of Bengal Gram and Kesari dal exhibited for sale  clearly was in contravention of the Act and Rules and, therefore,  conviction was rightly recorded.

       Under Rule 5 the definitions and standards of quality have been  laid down in Appendix-B. Rule 5, inter alia, provides that the standard  of quality of the various articles specified in Appendix-B are as  defined in that Appendix.  So far as Besan is concerned, standard is  provided in serial A 18.04 of Appendix-B. The same reads as follows:

"A 18.04: BESAN means the product obtained by grinding dehusked  Bengal gram (Cicer arietinum) and shall not contain any added colouring  matter or any other foreign ingredient.         Besan shall conform to the following standards:- (a) Total ash                                   Not more than 5 per cent. (b) Ash insoluable  in dilute hydrochloric acid         Not  more than 0.5 per cent"

       The trial Court had held though the ingredients were within the  permissible limit but because of the mixture of Kesari Dal, the article  could not be said to be adulterated. It noted that there was no finding  recorded by the Public Analyst that the percentage of powder of Kesari  as had been found in the sample, affected injuriously the nature,  substance and quality of the food article analysed.  Accordingly, it  was held that the sample collected was not adulterated.  High Court  only referred to Rule 44A and held that adulteration was established.   

Rule 44A reads as follows:

"44A: No person in any State shall, with effect from  such date as the State Government concerned may by  notification in the Official Gazette specify in this  behalf, sell or offer or expose for sale, or have in  his possession for the purpose of sale, under any  description or for use as an ingredient in the  reparation of any article of food intended for sale \026  

(a)     Kesari gram (Lathyrus sativus) and its  products.

(b)     Kesari dal (Lathyrus sativus) and its products.

(c)     Kesari dal flour (Lathyrus sativus) and its  products.

(d)     a mixture of Kesari gram (Lathyrus sativus) and  Bengal-gram (Cicer arietinum) or any other dal.  

(e)     a mixture of Kesari gram (Lathyrus sativus) and  Bengal-gram dal (Cicer arietinum) or any other  dal.

(f)     a mixture of Kesari dal (Lathyrus sativus)  flour and Bengal-gram (Cicer arietinum) or any  other dal."

       A bare reading of the Rule makes the position clear that the  State Government concerned has to notify in the official gazette the

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

date with effect from which Rule 44A becomes applicable in the State.

       We find that so far as State of M.P. is concerned, the  notification No.F-3/62/98/M-2/17 was issued for application of Rule 44A  with effect from 6th April, 2000.  Admittedly the samples were collected  much prior to that date i.e. 29.3.1988. Since Rule 44A was not  applicable and was not in operation in the State of M.P. on the date of  alleged collection of samples Rule 44A could not have been applied to  find the accused guilty.  Besides Section 2(i)(c) of the Act is  relevant. Section 2(i) defines "adulterated".  Section 2(i)(c) deals  with substitution of an article by inferior or cheaper substance which  affects injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof. In the  Public Analysts’ report there was no reference to this aspect.  What  would happen if the Public Analysts’ report in this regard even if Rule  44A was not in operation, does not, therefore, fall for consideration  in this case. On that score alone the High Court’s judgment is  indefensible and is accordingly set aside.

       Appeal is allowed.

       The bail bonds of the accused are discharged.