Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 541-542 OF 2014 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS.

4797-4798 OF 2011)

RUPAK KUMAR            …APPELLANT  

VERSUS

STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.        …RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT  

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD,J.

The  petitioner  is  aggrieved  by  the  order

whereby his prayer for quashing the order taking

cognizance  under  Section  16(1)(a)  of  the

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and issuing

process has been declined.

Short  facts  giving  rise  to  the  present

special  leave  petitions  are  that  when  the

Page 2

petitioner  was  posted  as  the  Superintendent  of

District Jail, Bihar Sharif, the Food Inspector

visited the jail premises and collected samples of

various materials including Haldi and Rice.  Those

articles  were  stored  for  consumption  of  the

prisoners.  The samples so collected were sent for

examination  and  analysis  and,  according  to  the

report of the Public Analyst, Haldi and Rice were

not  found  in  conformity  with  the  prescribed

standard and, therefore, held to be adulterated.

Accordingly, two separate prosecution reports were

submitted alleging commission of an offence under

Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration

Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

The  learned  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate  took

cognizance of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)

of  the  Act and  by  order dated 18th of March,

2006 directed for issuance of process in both the

cases.  The petitioner assailed both the orders in

separate  revision  applications  filed  before  the

Sessions  Judge;  but  both  were  dismissed.

Thereafter, the petitioner preferred two separate

2

Page 3

applications,  being  Criminal  Miscellaneous  No.

15527 of 2010 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 15471

of 2010 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure before the High Court.  The High Court,

by  the  orders  impugned  in  the  present  special

leave petitions, has dismissed both the criminal

miscellaneous  applications.   It  is  in  these

circumstances the petitioner has filed the present

special leave petitions.

Leave granted.

Mr. Nagendra Rai, senior counsel appearing on

behalf of  the  appellant  raises  a  very  short

point.   He  submits  that  the  appellant  at  the

relevant time was the Superintendent of Jail and

food items which have been found to be adulterated

were  not  stored  for  sale  but  were  meant  for

consumption  of  the  inmates.   He  submits  that

according to the prosecution report, these food

items were not stored for sale and, therefore, the

3

Page 4

allegations made do not come within the mischief

of Section 16(1)(a) of the Act.

We  have  bestowed  our  consideration  to  the

submission advanced and we find substance in the

same.  Section 7 of the Act, inter alia, prohibits

manufacture and sale of certain articles of food,

the same reads as follows:

“Section  7.  Prohibitions  of manufacture, sale, etc. of certain

articles of food. – No person shall himself  or  by  any  person  on  his behalf  manufacture  for  sale,  or store, sell or distribute-

(i)  any adulterated food;

(ii) any misbranded food;

(iii)any  article  of  food  for  the sale  of  which  a  licence  is prescribed,  except  in accordance with the conditions of the licence;

(iv) any article of food the sale of which is for the time being prohibited  by  the  Food (Health)  Authority  in  the interest of public health;  

(v)  any  article  of  food  in contravention  of  any  other provision  of  this  Act  or  of any rule made thereunder; or

4

Page 5

(vi) any adulterant.

Explanation-For  the  purposes  of this  section,  a  person  shall  be deemed  to  store  any  adulterated food  or  misbranded  food  or  any article  of  food  referred  to  in clause  (iii)  or  clause  (iv)  or clause (v) if he stores such food for  the  manufacture  therefrom  of any article of food for sale.”

From  a  plain  reading  of  the  aforesaid

provision, it is evident that Section 7 prohibits

a person to ‘manufacture for sale’ or ‘store’ or

‘sell’  or  ‘distribute’,  inter  alia,  any

adulterated food.  Contravention of Section 7 by

any person is punishable under Section 16 of the

Act.  Section 10 of the Act talks about the power

of Food Inspector and under this Section, he is

empowered to take sample of any article of food

from any person selling such article.  It is apt

to reproduce Section 10(1) and 10(2), which read

as follows:

“Section  10.  Powers  of  food inspectors. - (1) A Food Inspector shall have power-

(a)  to  take  samples  of  any article of food from-

5

Page 6

(i) any person selling such article;

(ii) any person who is in the  course  of  conveying, delivering or preparing to deliver such article to a purchaser or consignee;

(iii)  a  consignee  after delivery  of  any  such article to him; and

(b)  to  send  such  sample  for analysis to the public analyst for the local area within which such sample has been taken;

(c) with the previous approval of the Local (Health) Authority having  jurisdiction  in  the local  area  concerned,  or  with the  previous  approval  of  the Food  (Health)  Authority,  to prohibit  the  sale  of  any article of food in the interest of public health.

Explanation-For  the  purposes  of sub-clause  (iii)  of  clause  (a), “consignee”  does  not  include  a person  who  purchases  or  receives any  article  of  food  for  his  own consumption.

(2)  Any  food  inspector  may  enter and  inspect  any  place  where  any article of food is manufactured, or stored for sale, or stored for the manufacture of any other article of food  for  sale,  or  exposed  or exhibited  for  sale  or  where  any adulterant is manufactured or kept, and take samples of such article of food or adulterant for analysis:

6

Page 7

Provided  that  no  sample  of  any article  of  food,  being  primary food,  shall  be  taken  under  this sub-section if it is not intended for sale as such food.”

A  conjoint  reading  of  the  aforesaid

provisions makes it clear that the Food Inspector

has the power to take sample of any article of

food from any person selling such article under

sub-section (1) whereas sub-section (2) confers on

him the power to enter and inspect any place where

any article of food is manufactured, stored or

exposed for sale and take samples of such articles

of food for analysis.  Section 16 provides for

penalties. Section 16(1)(a)(i) and 16(1)(a)(ii),

which  are  relevant  for  the  purpose  read  as

follows:

“Section  16.  Penalties.  -(1) Subject  to  the  provisions  of sub-section (IA) 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 within the meaning of sub-clause (m) of clause  (ia)  of  section  2  or

7

Page 8

misbranded within the meaning of clause (ix) of that section or  the  sale  of  which  is prohibited under any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder or by an order of the Food (Health) Authority;

(ii) other than an article of food referred to in sub-clause (i), in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule made thereunder ; or

xxx xxx xxx”

According to this section any person, who by

himself  or  by  any  other  person  on  his  behalf,

manufactures  for  sale  or  stores  or  sells  any

adulterated article is liable to be punished.

In  the  present  case,  according  to  the

prosecution,  the  appellant,  a  Superintendent  of

Jail, had stored Rice and Haldi and, therefore,

his act comes within the mischief of Section 7 and

16 of the Act.  In view of the aforesaid, what

needs  to  be  decided  is  as  to  whether  the

expression  ‘store’  as  used  in  Section  7  and

Section  16  of  the  Act  would  mean  storage

simplicitor or storage for sale.  We have referred

to the provisions of Section 7, Section 10 and

8

Page 9

Section  16  of  the  Act  and  from  their  conjoint

reading, it will appear that the Act is intended

to  prohibit  and  penalise  the  sale  of  any

adulterated article of food.  In our opinion, the

term ‘store’ shall take colour from the context

and the collocation in which it occurs in Section

7  and  16  of  the  Act.   Applying  the  aforesaid

principle, we are of the opinion, that ‘storage’

of an adulterated article of food other than for

sale does not come within the mischief of Section

16  of  the  Act.   In  view  of  the  authoritative

pronouncement  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of

Municipal  Corporation  of  Delhi  v.  Laxmi  Narain

Tandon, (1976) 1 SCC 546, this submission does not

need further elaboration.  In the said case it has

been held as follows:

“14. From a conjoint reading of the above referred provisions, it will be clear that the broad scheme of the Act is to prohibit and penalise the sale, or import, manufacture, storage or distribution for sale of any  adulterated  article  of  food. The terms “store” and “distribute” take their colour from the context

9

Page 10

and  the  collocation  of  words  in which they occur in Sections 7 and 16. “Storage” or “distribution” of an adulterated article of food for a purpose other than for sale does not  fall  within  the  mischief  of this section…………………”

In the case in hand, it is not the allegation

that the appellant had stored Haldi and Rice for

sale.  Therefore, in our opinion, the allegations

made do not constitute any offence and, hence, the

prosecution of the appellant for an offence under

Section 16(1)(a) of the Act shall be an abuse of

the process of the Court.

In  the  result  we  allow  these  appeals,  set

aside  the  impugned  orders  and  quash  the

appellant’s prosecution in both the cases.

………………………………………………………………J (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

10

Page 11

    ………………………………………………………………J                     (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)

NEW DELHI, MARCH 04, 2014.  

11