Summary
The Supreme Court reversed the vendor’s acquittal for storing adulterated ghee. Under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act’s section 7 Explanation, storage for making sweets for sale was covered even though the ghee was not sold separately. The Central Food Laboratory Director’s certificate superseded the Public Analyst’s report; comparing their readings could not sustain acquittal. Conviction was entered, but the sentence was confined to imprisonment already undergone in the stated circumstances.
Issues
- Whether adulterated ghee stored for preparing sweets for sale fell within section 7.
- Whether variation between the Public Analyst’s report and the Director’s superseding certificate justified acquittal.
Provisions considered
- Section 7 and Explanation, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954Storage for manufacture of another food article for sale is deemed storage within the prohibition. The post-1976 Explanation governed the ghee kept for making jalebis. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 7)
- Section 13(3) and proviso to section 13(5), Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954The Director’s certificate superseded the Public Analyst’s report and was final and conclusive as to the facts stated. Variation between those reports did not furnish the basis adopted for acquittal. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
Held
- It was no defence that the adulterated ingredient was not itself offered for sale. Section 7’s Explanation expressly covered its storage for preparing another food for sale, including the ghee admittedly kept for making jalebis. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 7)
- Laxmi Narain Tandon concerned the provision before the 1976 amendment introducing that deeming Explanation and did not govern the later statutory position applicable here. (¶ 7)
- Once the Director’s certificate superseded the Public Analyst’s report, the latter lost evidentiary significance in the proceedings. Comparing the readings to infer that the samples were unrepresentative could not sustain the acquittal; the contrary Delhi High Court decisions did not lay down good law. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12)
- The Court convicted the vendor but confined imprisonment to the period already undergone because proceedings had begun in 2004, the business had closed and the accused was about 70. That sentencing relief accompanied conviction rather than restoration of acquittal. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Result
Appeal allowed; acquittal set aside and conviction entered under the stated food-adulteration provisions. Sentence confined to imprisonment already undergone.