http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PURAN MAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT26/03/1985

BENCH: VARADARAJAN, A. (J) BENCH: VARADARAJAN, A. (J) MISRA RANGNATH

CITATION:  1985 AIR  741            1985 SCR  (3) 464  1985 SCC  (2) 589        1985 SCALE  (1)539

ACT:      Prevention of  Food Adulteration  Act 1954-S.2(1)  (f)- Living worms  found in the sample-Distinction between a worm and an  ’insect’-Public Analyst’s  report silent-Whether the food  sample   was  worm-Infested  or  insect  -Infested  or adulterated or  unfit for  human consumption-Sample-If could be termed "adulterated."      Words and  Phrases-"Or is  otherwise  unfit  for  human consumption appearing ix s. 2(1) (f )-Meaning of.

HEADNOTE:      Section 2(1) (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954  Provides that  an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if the article  consists wholly or in part of any  filthy, putrid,  disgusting, rotten,  decomposed  or diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect-infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption.      The respondent  was prosecuted  for  an  offence  under section 7  read with  section 16 of the Act. The prosecution case was  that a  sample of lal mirchi powder was taken from the grocery  shop of  the respondent.  On an analysis by the Public Analyst  it was  found that the sample contained nine living meal  worms. Thor was no other evidence in support of the case  of the  prosecution that  the lal mirch powder was adulterated.  The   learned  Magistrate   found   that   the prosecution had  failed to  prove that the lal mirchi powder was adulterated and acquitted the respondent. The High Court dismissed  the  Criminal  Revision  Petition  filed  by  the appellant State in limine.      Dismissing the appeal by the State, ^      HELD: (I)  The words  ’worm’, ’infest’ and ’insect’ are defined in  Webster’s New  World Dictionary  (1962 Edition). ’Worm’  means   "any  of  many  long,  slender,  soft-bodied Creeping animals,  some segmented,  that live  by  burrowing underground or  as parasites,  as the earth-worm, tapeworm," ’Infest’ means  "to overrun  or inhabit  in  large  numbers, usually so as to be harmful or 465      bothersome, swarm in or about. ’Insect’ means "any of a large group  of small invertebrate animals characterized, in the adult  state, by division of the body into head, thorax,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

and abdomen,  three pairs of membranes wings: beetles, bees, flies,  wasps,  mosquitoes,  etc.  are  insects."  The  same meaning is  given of  the above  three words  in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary.  Therefore, it  is not  possible to  hold that a worm and an insect are the same.                                                     [467C-E]      M/S Narkeklange  Roller Flour  Mills and another v. The Corporation   of   Calcutta   1973   (Prevention   of   Food Adulteration Cases) 257, referred to.       (2) Even if the nine worms found by the Public Analyst in the  sample are considered to be insects, the certificate of the  Public Analyst  does not  support the  case  of  the prosecution that  the lal mirchi powder was adulterated, for the Public  Analyst has  not expressed  his opinion that the lal  mirchi  powder  was  either  worm-infested  or  insect- infested or  that on  account of  the presence  of the  meal worms the sample was unfit for human consumption. Therefore, the prosecution  has not  established  by  any  satisfactory evidence the  requirement of  Section 2(1)  (f) of  the Act. Consequently  no   interference  is   called  for  with  the Judgement of the High Court.                                                     [473G-H]      Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo Mal [1976] 2 SCR 1,  Municipal Corporation  of Delhi  v. Tek Chand Bhatia [1980] 1 SCR 910, held inapplicable.      Per Varadarajan J.         No opinion is expressed as to which of the two views expressed in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo Mal, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 1, and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia [1980] I S.C.R.910 is correct, Since this Bench  also is of equal strength. Moreover, it is not necessary to do so having regard to the facts of the present case.  [473F                                                            ]      Per Ranganath Misra 1. (concurring in the conclusion)        The true meaning of section 2(1) (f) has been brought   out in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia,    11980] I SCR 910 and the conclusion that ’it would not be   necessary in such a case to prove further that the article        of food was unfit for human consumption’ is a correct   statement of the law. In the instant case, the prosecution evidence is inadequate to warrant interference.     [474B-C]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Criminal  Appeal  No. 539 of 1984      From the  judgment and order dated 17.11.82 of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 268/82. 466      D K Sen, G.D. Gupta and R.N. Poddar for the Appellant.      D.B. Vohra for the Respondent.      The following Judgments were delivered      VARADARAJAN, J.  This appeal by special leave is by the Delhi Administration  and directed against the judgment of a learned Single  Judge of  the Delhi  High  Court  dismissing Criminal Revision  No. 268  of 1982 in limine. That criminal revision was  filed against  the acquittal of the respondent by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in Case No. 11 of 1982,  in which  the respondent was tried  for an offence under s.  7 read  with s.  16  of  the  Prevention  of  Food Adulteration Act,  1954 (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ’the Act’).      The Food  Inspector, P.W. 4 took a sample of lal mirchi powder from  the grocery shop of the respondent. On analysis

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

by the  Public Analyst  it was  found in Ex. PW 1/C that the sample contained  nine living meal worms. There was no other evidence in  support of the case of the prosecution that the lal mirchi  powder was  adulterated. It was contended before the learned  Magistrate that  the evidence  by  way  of  the Public Analyst’s  report does not satisfy the requirement of the definition of ’adulterated article’ of food contained in s. 2  (1) (f)  of the  Act. The  learned Magistrate accepted this contention and found that the prosecution has failed to prove that  the lal  mirchi powder  was adulterated  and  he accordingly acquitted the respondent.      The Calcutta High Court in M/s Narkeklange Roller Flour Mills and  another v.  The Corporation  of  Calcutta(1)  has observed:      "....  Clause   (f)  of  Section  2  defines  the  word      ’adulterated’ and  an article  of food  is said  to  be      adulterated if  it  is  insect  infested.  By  physical      examination the Public Analyst found blackish worms and      the sample  there is at best worm infested. Is the word      worm synonymous  with ’insect’  ? Did  the  legislature      intend to  condemn wheat  products due  to presence  of      seasonal worms  ? The  word ’insect’  is defined in the      Oxford  Dictionary  as  "small  invertebrate  segmented      animal having head, thorax, abdomen, and three pairs of      thoracic  legs,  usually  with  one  or  two  pairs  of      thoracic (1) 1973 (Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases) 257. 467      wings. "The  word "worm"  in  the  same  dictionary  is      defined  as   "kinds  of   invertebrate   limbless   or      apparently  limbless   creeping  animal,  such  as  are      segmented in rings or are parasite in the intestines or      tissues."  There   is,  therefore,   a  good   deal  of      difference between  worms and  insects and  a sample of      food  becomes   adulterated  only  when  it  is  insect      infested. In  the present  sample, however,  worms were      found to  be present  and that  in our  view, does  not      satisfy   the    requirements   of    the    definition      "adulterated" under Section 2 of the Act."      According to  the Webster’s  New World Dictionary (1962 edition), ’worm’  means "any  of many  long, slender,  soft- bodied  creeping  animals,  some  segmented,  that  live  by burrowing underground  or as  parasites, as  the earth-worm, tapeworm".  According  to  Webster’s  New  World  Dictionary ’infest’ means  "to overrun  or inhabit  in  large  numbers, usually so  as to  be harmful  or bother-some  swarm  in  or about." According  to that  dictionary an ’insect’ means any "of  a   large   group   of   small   invertebrate   animals characterized, in  the adult  state, by division of the body into head,  thorax, and  abdomen, three  pairs of membranous wings: beetles,  bees, flies,  wasps, mosquitoes,  etc.  are insects."      According to  the Shorter  Oxford  English  Dictionary, ’worm means  "a slender,  creeping, naked,  limbless  animal usually brown  or reddish  with a  soft body  divided into a series  of   segments;  an  earthworm."  According  to  that dictionary an  ’insect’ means  "a small invertebrate animal, usually having  a body  divided into  segments, and  several pairs of legs, and often winged."      Therefore it is not possible to hold that a worm and an insect are the same.      Even if worms and insects are the same the appellant is not out  of difficulty  in this  case. As already stated the Public Analyst has found in the sample only nine living meal worms and  he has  neither stated that it is insect-infested

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

nor that it is unfit for human consumption on account of the presence of  the meal  worms nor  that it is otherwise unfit for human consumption.      According   to   Webster’s   Illustrated   Contemporary Dictionary  (Encyclopedic   Edition),  ’infest’   means  "to overrun or spread in large numbers so as to be unpleasant or unsafe". 468      In Municipal  Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo Mal, (1) the Public Analyst had reported:      "    Date  of   Analysis:  10-1-1969,   Insect-infested      pieces of Kajus: 21.9% and I am of the opinion that the      same is  adulterated due  to insect  infested pieces of      Kajus to the extent of 21.9%" Sarkaria, J. speaking for himself and Gupta, J. has observed in that case:      "    In view  of the  construction that  the expression      ’insect-infested’, includes  infestation even  by  dead      insects, the further point to be considered is, whether      mere  insect   infestation,  without   more,  would  be      sufficient to  hold the  article  to  be  ’adulterated’      within the  meaning of  sub-clause (f) of clause (I) of      s. 2  of the  Act .. The point sought to be made out is      that in this case, the prosecution, the defence and the      High Court  all felt  that the  report  of  the  Public      Analyst was vague, inadequate and deficient, and in the      absence of  clear proof  of the  sample being unfit for      human consumption,  it could  not  constitute  a  valid      basis for  holding the article to be adulterated within      the meaning of sec. 2(1)(f).           As  against  the  above,  Mr.  F.S.  Nariman,  the      learned; Counsel  for the appellant Corporation submits      that in  the case of food articles for which no minimum      standard or  purity is  prescribed, the  moment  it  is      proved that  a proportion  of percentage of the article      not being  a  proportion  or  percentage  as  would  be      covered by  the  rule,  de  minimis  non  curat  lex-is      putrid,  filthy,   disgusting,  decomposed  or  insect-      infested, it  would be  deemed to  be unfit  for  human      consumption  and   therefore  adulterated   within  the      contemplation of  s. 2(1)(f). In any case, proceeds the      argument, it  is implicit  in the  report of the Public      Analyst that  the article  in question  was found unfit      for human  consumption. This  implication according  to      the  learned   Counsel  flows   ’  from  the  Analyst’s      conclusion that  the article was "adulterated". Counsel      has criticised the view taken by the Bench in Dhanraj’s      case that if for an article of food, no (1) [1976] 2 S.C.R 1. 469      standard of quality or purity has been prescribed or no      limits have  been prescribed  for the  validity or  its      constituents, then sub-clause (I) of clause (f) of sec.      2 will  not apply  and that  the Public  Analyst is not      competent  to   say  as   to  what  extent  of  insect-      infestation would make the article "adulterated’- The relevant part of Section 2 reads as under:      "(1)      "adulterated"-an article  of food   shall  be      deemed to be adulterated-           (a) to (e)      ....   .....       ....      (f)  If the  article consists  wholly or in part of any           filthy, putrid,  disgusting, rotten, decomposed or           diseased  animal  or  vegetable  substance  or  is           insect-infested or  is otherwise  unfit for  human           consumption".

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

         The  phrase  "or  is  otherwise  unfit  for  human      consumption" can  be  read  conjunctively  as  well  as      disjunctively. If it is read conjunctively, that is, in      association with  what precedes it, sub-clause (f) with      slight consequent  rearrangement and  parenthesis would      read like  this: "If  the article,  is unfit  for human      consumption on  account of (a) its consisting wholly or      in part  of  any  filthy,  putrid,  disgusting  rotten,      decomposed or  diseased animal  or vegetable sub stance      or being  insect-infested, (b)  or on  account  of  any      other cause ’. In this view of the sub-clause, proof of      unfitness of  the article  for human  consumption is  a      must for bringing the case within its purview. F           If the phrase is to be read disjunctively the mere      proof of  whole  or  any  part  of  the  article  being      "filthy, putrid,  disgusting, rotten  ... -  or insect-      infested" would  be conclusive to bring the case within      the mischief  of this  sub- clause, and it would not be      necessary in  such a  case to  prove further  that  the      article was unfit for human consumption.           We would  prefer  the  first  construction  as  it      comports best with reason, common sense, realities, the      tenor of this provision and the main purpose and scheme      of  the   Act.  The  adjectives  "filthy",  "putrid  ’,      "disgusting", "decomposed", 470      "rotten".. "insect-infested"  refer to  the quality  of      the article  and furnish  the indicia for presuming the      article to  be unfit  for human  consumption.  But  the      presumption  may   not  be   conclusive  in   a  cases,      irrespective of  the character  of the article, and the      nature and extent of the vice afflicting it....."           In Dhanraj’s case (I.L.R. 1970 Delhi 681) the High      Court construed this sub-clause (f) thus:      "The word  ’otherwise’ in  sub-clause (f) of cl. (I) of      sec. 2  does  suggest  that  all  the  adjectives  used      earlier refer to the quality of the article being unfit      for human consumption. To fall under that sub-clause an      article of  food must  be unfit  for human  consumption      because it  consists wholly  or in  part of any filthy,      putrid,  disgusting,  rotten,  decomposed  or  diseased      animal or  vegetable substance or because it is insect-      infested or on account of any other cause".      On the  basis of  that decision it is stated as follows in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, published by the Eastern Book  Company, seventh edition, with reference to s. 2 (1) (f) of that Act thus:      "    The  phrase   "or  otherwise   unfit   for   human      consumption"  should  be  read  conjunctively  and  not      disjunctively,  that   is,  in  association  with  what      precedes it. This sub-clause would read like this:           If the  article is  unfit for human consumption on      account of-      (a)  its consisting  wholly or  in part  of any filthy,           putrid, disgusting, rotten, decomposed or diseased           animal or  vegetable substance  or  being  insect-           infested,      (b)  or on account of any other cause.           In this  view  of  the  sub-clause  proof  of  the      unfitness of  the article  for human  consumption is  a      must  for   bringing  the   case  within  its  purview.      Municipal Corporation, Delhi v. Kacheroo Mal(l) (1) [1976] 2 S.C.R. I 471           All the  adjectives used  in this  sub-clause  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

    presumptive    and  not an absolute test of the quality      of the article being unfit for human consumption. To be      more precise,  in the  case of an article in respect of      which the  Rules do  not prescribe any minimum standard      of  purity   or  any   minimum  proportion   of  insect      infestation that  would exclude  in from the definition      of "adulterated article" it will be a mixed question of      law and  fact whether the insect infestation is of such      a nature,  degree and  extent as  renders  the  article      unfit for  human consumption. The opinion of the public      analyst who  examines and  analyses  the  sample  would      constitute legal  evidence. As an expert in the science      he is  competent to  opine and testify about this fact.      Municipal Corporation,  Delhi v.  Kacheroo Mal[(1976) 2      SCR 1]".      An equally  strong’ Bench  of this  Court l has taken a different view  in regard  to  s.  2(1)(f)  of  the  Act  in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia(l), where A.P. Sen,  J. speaking for himself and Murtaza Fazal Ali, J. has observed:      "    In Dhanraj’s case (supra) the High Court construed      sub-cl. (f) thus:      "The word  ’otherwise’ in  sub-clause (f) of cl. (l) of      sec. 2  does  suggest  that  all  the  adjectives  used      earlier refer to the quality of the article being unfit      for human consumption. To fall under that sub-clause an      article of  food must  be unfit  for human  consumption      because it  consists wholly  or in  part of any filthy,      putrid,  disgusting,  rotten,  decomposed  or  diseased      animal or  vegetable substance or because it is insect-      infested or on account of any other cause,"           We are  of the  opinion that  the High  Court  was      clearly wrong  in its inter-pretation of s. 2(1)(f). On      the plain  language of  the definition  section  it  is      quite apparent  that the  words ’or  is otherwise unfit      for human  consumption’ are  disjunctive of the rest of      the words  preceding them. It relates to a distinct and      separate cclass altogether, It seems to us (1) [1980] I S.C.R., 910 472      that the  last clause  ’or is otherwise unfit for human      consumption’ is  residuary provision  which would apply      to a case not covered by or falling squarely within the      clauses preceding  it. If  the phrase  is  to  be  read      disjunctively the  mere proof  of the  article of  food      being ’filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed .. Or insect-      infested’ would  be per se sufficient to bring the case      within the purview of the word ’adulterated’ as defined      in sub-cl.  (f) and it would not be necessary in such a      case to  prove further  that the  article of  food  was      unfit for human consumption.           It is,  however, pointed out that the construction      placed by  the High  Court in  Dhanraj’s case  upon  s.      2(1)(f) of  the Act  has been received with approval by      this  Court   in  Municipal  Corporation  of  Delhi  v.      Kacheroo Mal  [(1976) 2  S.C.R.1] where  it is observed      that ’the  construction placed  by the  High  Court  in      Dhanraj’s case  is the  correct exposition  of the  law      embodied in  s. 2(1)(f)’.  It is  added for the sake of      elucidation  that  the  adjectives  which  precede  the      phrase ’or  is otherwise  unfit for  human consumption’      indicate presumptive  but not  absolute criteria  as to      the quality  of the  article of  food. If we may say so      with  respect,   we   have   reservations   about   the      correctness of  this decision,  but it is not necessary

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

    to refer the case to a larger Bench.      In Kacheroo Mal’s case it is observed:      "The  phrase   "or  is   otherwise  unfit   for   human      consumption" can  be  read  conjunctively  as  well  as      disjunctively. If it is read conjunctively, that is, in      association with  what precedes it, sub-clause (f) with      slight consequent  rearrangement and  parenthesis would      read like  this; "If  the article  is unfit  for  human      consumption on  account of (a) its consisting wholly or      in part  of any  filthy,  putrid,  disgusting,  rotten,      decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or      being insect-infested,  (b) or  on account of any other      cause’  In  this  view  of  the  sub-clause,  proof  of      ’unfitness of  the article  for human consumption’ is a      must for bringing the case within its purview.           If the  phrase is  to be  read disjunctively,  the      more proof  of the  whole or  any part  of the  article      being  "filthy,   putrid,  disgusting,  rotten.....  or      insect infested" would be conclu- 473      sive to bring the case within the mischief of this sub-      clause, and it would not be necessary in such a case to      prove further  that the  article was  unfit  for  human      consumption.           We would  prefer  the  first  construction  as  it      comports best with reason, common sense, realities, the      tenor of this provision and the main purpose and scheme      of  the   Act.  The   adjectives  "filthy",   "putrid",      "disgusting",   "decomposed",    "rotten"..    "insect-      infested" refer  to the  quality  of  the  article  and      furnish the  indicia for  presuming the  article to  be      unfit for  human consumption.  But the  presumption may      not be  conclusive in  all cases,  irrespective of  the      character of  the article, and the nature and extent of      the vice  afflicting it. This is particularly so, where      an article is found to be "insect-infested."           With utmost respect, we are not able to share this      view and  would hold  that the observations made in the      Judgment should  be confined to the particular facts of      that case.           The decision  in Kacheroo  Mal’s case  (supra) was      largely based on the circumstances that the standard of      quality and  purity was  not prescribed  in respect  of      cashew nuts. Now that r. 48-B of the Prevention of Food      Adulteration Rules;  1955 has been framed, the decision      in   Kacheroo    Mal’s   case   (Supra)   is   rendered      inapplicable."      We  also   constitute  a   Bench  of   equal  strength. Therefore, I refrain from expressing any opinion as to which of the  two aforesaid  views is correct. Nor is it necessary for me to do so having regard to the facts of this case.      Even if  the nine  worms found by the Public Analyst in the sample  are considered to be insects, the certificate of the  Public  Analyst  does  not  support  the  case  of  the prosecution that the lal  mirchi powder was adulterated, for the Public  Analyst ha-  not expressed  his opinion that the lal mirchi  powder was  either  worm.  infested  or  insect- infested or  that on  account of  the presence  of the  meal worms  the   sample  was   unfit  for   human   consumption. ’Therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not established by  any satisfactory evidence the requirement of s. 2(1)(f)  of the  Act. Consequently,  no  interference  is called for with the judgment of the 474 High  Court  which,  as  stated  above,  has  dismissed  the

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

criminal revision  in  limine.  The  appeal  is  accordingly dismissed.      In my  opinion, the  true meaning  of Section 2(ia) (f) has been  brought out  in Municipal  Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand  Bhatia (supra)  and the conclusion that ’it would not be  necessary in  such a  case to prove further that the article of  food was  unfit  for  human  consumption’  is  a correct statement  of the  law.  I  agree  with  my  learned brother  that   the  evidence  led  by  the  prosecution  is inadequate to  warrant interference  with  the  judgment  of acquittal passed  by the trying Magistrate and upheld by the High Court.      I,  therefore,   agree  that   the  appeal  has  to  be dismissed. M.L.A                                      Appeal dismissed, 475