Mohammed Yamin versus Uttar Pradesh & Another

¶1

3511

¶2

MOHAMMED YAMIN

¶3

v.

¶4

Sl'A'fl!; OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER

¶5

April 26, 1972

¶6

[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND K. K. MATHEW, JJ.J

¶7

Prevention of Focd Adul,teration Act, 37 of 1954 ss. 7 and 16- De{initi(Jn of jaggery in Para A. 07,.05 of Rules made under ActSt!lndard. laid down for ;aggery whether applies to Shakkar-Shakkar whether jaggery-If dealer sells adulterated Shakkar he com/nits offence under s. 16 read with s. 7 of Act even if lhe Shakkar was not stored for sal~l.: to Food Inspector is a sale for the purpose of s. 16(1) of the Ac•.

¶8

c

¶9

The Food Inspector purcha8ed 1 t seers oi Shakkar from the appellant after paying i!S price. He divided the sample into three parts, gave one to the a)>pellant and retained the other two with him. One of the samples rl>lained was. sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The Public Analyst found it to be adul'erated becau•e of excess of extraneous matter. The Food Inspector tiled ~ complaint before the Magistrate who comicted !hf> appellant for an offence under s. 16 read with secltlon 7 of the Preveation of Food Adulteration Act 1954. In appeal the Sessi<>ns Judge acquitted the appellant but in further appeal to High Court the appellant w~ again convi<;ted. He appealed to this Court by special leave. The contentions on behalf of the appellant were : (i) that Shakklr is not jaggery. and since rio standard of quality has been prescribed for Shakkar wider the rules fra·med under the Act the S'h:ak'kar was not adulterated; (ii) that he had not kept the Shakkar for sale but for manufacturing Bab out of it and therefore the convici011. under s. 16 read wih section 7 of the Act wa• bad. HELD: (i) Shakkar is a product obtained by following processing juce pressed from out of sugar cane and !hetefore in view Qf the definition of jaggery in para A:07 .05 of Appendix B of the rules ft'amed under the Act Shakkar is jaggery. In Chambers 20th ~ntury Dictionary (reviBed edition) also the Hindi equivalent of jaggery given as Shakkar. Therefoce the finding of the High Court on the basis of •he report of the Analyst that the Shakkar did not conform to the otan.dard of quality prescribed for jaggery and was thus adulterated was correct and had to be maintained. f353 B-FJ

¶10

Therefoce the finding of the High Court on the basis of •he report of F "l; the Analyst that the Shakkar did not conform to the otan.dard of quality prescribed for jaggery and was thus adulterated was correct and had to be maintained. f353 B-FJ (2) The finding· of the High Court was that the Shakkar was kept by the appellant for the purpose of sale and not for the purpose of .il.Jf manufacturing Rab out of it and that the attempt of the appellant was to oell the Shakkar as an article of food after mixing Sbelkhari in it. G There was no reason to think that the finding was wrong. But assuming that th<. finding was wrong and that the appellant kept the Shakkar ndt d. ' for sale but for manufacturing Rab oot of it, the appellant would still be guilty. If Shakkar is an article of food, it does not matter whether the appellant kept ir for sale or for manufacturing Rab out of it provided the !" appellant had sold it. And a sale to the Food Inspector is a sale for the purpose of 16( I) of the Act. (,C-D] H •k The Food Inspector, Calicut Corp&ration v. Charukanttil Gopalan and another, 119711 2 S.C.R. 322, followed and applied.

¶11

••

¶12

The appeal must accordingly be dismissed.

¶13

3 5.1

¶14

MOHD. YAMIN v. STATE (Mathew, J.)

¶15

A CJUMINAL APPELLATE. JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 1968.

¶16

Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated April 12, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Govt. Appeal No. 13 of 196' and Criminal Govt. Appeal No. IO of 1966.

¶17

B B. P. Maheshwari and Sobhagma/ Jain, for the appellant.

¶18

0. P. Ra1111, for the respondent.

¶19

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶20

Madlew, J, This, appeal, by special leave, is against a judgment c of the High Court of Allahabad by which it restored the ordr of the Magistrate convicting the appellant of an offence under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act 37 of 1954), hereinafter called the 'Acf1 and sentencing hiJ11 to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment ad pay a fine of Rs. l,0001- and in default of payment of fine to D undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months, after reversing the order passed by the Sessions Jud,ge in appeal acquitting him of the offence.

¶21

On June 13, 1963, Head Constable Baboo Khan was on patrol duty. He happened to come to the Chakki of one Abdul Razaaq. There he found a heap of Shakkar and some labourers E mixing Shelkhari in it with spades. He went to the police station to inform 'the Station Officer about it but the Station Officer was not there. He then met the Sanitary Inspector and informed him about what he saw at the Chakki. 111e Sanitary Inspector accompanied by the Food Inspector proceeded 'to the Chak.ki and there they found" the labourers mixing Shelkhari with Shakkar. F The stock of Shakkar belonged to the appellant. The Food Inspector purchased 1 t seers of Shakkar from the appellant by way of sample after paying its price. He divided ·the sample into three parts, gave one to the appellant and retained the other two with him. One of the samples retained was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The Analyst found, in his report G dated July 11, 1963, that the Shakkar contained 2.4% moisture, 72. 7 % total sugar, 64. 7 % sucrose, 17 % extraneous matter insolub«e in water. According to him the exicraneous matter insoluble in water, total ash and ash insoluble in Hydrochloric acid ex· ceeded by 15.0%, 10.l % all.d 13.3% respectively as against the maximum prescribed standards of 2.0%, 6.0% and 0.5% respectively.

¶22

On the basis of a complaint filed by the Food Inspector of the Municipal Board, Saharanpur, the Magistrate who tried the ap·

¶23

(1973] l S.C.R.

¶24

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶25

pellant for an offence under section 16 read with section 7 of. the Act cam~ to the conclusion that the appellant had stored the Shakkar for sale, that it was adulterated and that he was guilty of the offence and convicted and sentenc~d him as aforesaid.

¶26

The appellant filed an appeal against the order before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Jud11;e acquitted him of the offence for the reason that the prosecution had not proved that the Shakkar stol'~d by the appellant was for sale. He said that the appellant was mixing eX!traneous matter with the Shakkar for converting it into Rab and as such it cannot be said that the Shakkar was stored for sale by the appellant. He also said that no standard of quality was prescribed by the rules framed under the Act for Shakkar, that as an article of food, Shakkar was neither 'gur' nor 'Jaggery' and that the sale of Shakkar to the Food Inspector by the appellant was under duress and was not a sale in the eye of the Jaw.

¶27

The Municipal Board filed an appeal against the order to the High Court. T'1e High Court held that Shakkar is same as 'jaggery', that standard of quality has been prescriJ:\ed by the rules framed under the Act for jaggery, that the Shakkar in question was adulterated, that the sample purchased by the Food inspector for the purDose of analysis amounted to sale within the meaning of section f(xiii) of the Act, that Food Inspector had power under the Act to get the sample even if the Shakkar was stored for being manufactured into Rab and not for saleand restoreC the order of the Magistrate convicting and sentencing the appellant as aforesaid.

¶28

The first contention on behalf of thte appellant was that Shakkar is not 'jaggery', aml since no standard of quality has been prescribed for Shakkar under 'the rules fromed under the Act, the Shakkar was not adulterated.

A

B

c

D

E

F

We find it difficult to accept th~ contention that Shakkar is not iaggery. Para A.07 .05 of Appendix B of the Rules reads :

¶36

"Gur or jaggery means the product obtained by boiling or processing juice pressed out of sugar cane or extracted from palmyra palm, da'1e palm or coconut palm. It shall be free from substances deleterious to health and shall conform to the following analyticai standards on drv weight basis :

¶37

(i) tofal sugars not less than 90 per cent and sucrose not less than 70 per cent.

¶38

G

¶39

H

¶40

(ii) extren·~ous matter insoluble in water not more than :::> per cent.

¶41

MOHD. YAMIN v. STATE (Mathew, J.)

¶42

353

¶43

A

¶44

(iii) total ash not more than 6 per cent.

¶45

(iv) ash insoluble in hydrochloric acid (HCI) not more than 0.5 per cent.

¶46

B

¶47

Gur or jaggery other than that of the liquid or semiliquid variety shall not contain more than 10 per cent moisture."

¶48

It is not disputed that Shakkar is a product obtained by boiling or processinf{ juice pressed from out of sugarcane, and therefore, it is clear that Shakkar is jaggery. But counsel for the appellant submitted that Appendix B of the Rules does not define jaggery c but only gives the description of what '.iaggery' is and it cannot, therefore, be said that jaggery would comprehend all the varieties of products obtained by boiling or processing juice pressed out of sugarcane. In other words, counsel said that Appendix B to the Rules only describes what jaggery or gur is and that it does not D define what jaggery or gur is. We are unable to accept the contention for the reason that jaggery or gur is defined as any product obtained by boiling or processing juice pressed out of sugarcane and so any product S() obtained would be comprehend witf1in the definition. Quite apart from this, we find in Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary (Revised Edition) the meaning of E 'jaggery' as :

¶49

"A coarse dark sugar made from palm sap or otherwise. (Hindi-Shakkar; Sanskrit-Sarkara) ."

¶50

It is, therefore, clear that Shakkar is 'jaggery'; and ithe finding of the High Court, on the basis of the report of the Analyst, that F the Shakkar has not conformed to the standard of quality prescribed for jaggery and, therefore, !hf~ food was adulterated, was correct and has to be maintained.

¶51

The secopd contention on behalf of the appellant was that he had kept the Shakkar for manufa~turing Rab out of it. The G contention, in other words, is that he' had not kept 1he Shakkar for sale but kept it for manufacturing Rab out of it and, therefore, the conviction under section 16 read with section 7 of the Act was bad. We do not think that there is any substance in this contention either. Section 7 of the Act, in so far as H is mateH rial, provides :

¶52

"No P'"rson shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store. sell or distribute--

¶53

(1973) 1 S.C.R.

¶54

354

¶55

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶56

A

¶57

{i) any adulterated food;"

¶58

Section 16, which imposes the punishment, in so far as it is relevant, says :

¶59

"16 (l ) If any person~

¶60

(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-

¶61

B

¶62

( i) which is adulterated or misbranded or the sale of which is prohibited by the Food (Health) authority in 'the interest of public health;"

¶63

The finding of th·~ High Court is that the Shakkar was kept by the appellant for the purpose of sale and not for the purpose of manufacturing Rab out of rt and that the attempt of th.i appellant was to sell the Shakkar as an article of food after mixing Shelkhari with it. We see no reason to think that the finding was wrbng. But assuming that 'the finding was wrong and that the appellant kept the Shakkar was for sale but for manufacturi ·. ; Rab out of it, what follows ? If Shakkar is an article of food. it does not matter wh·ther •the appellant kept it fo.· sale, or for manufacturing Rab out of it, provided the appelia.1t has sold i.t. And a sale to the Food Inspector is a sale for the purpose of section 16 of •the Ac!. In The Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation v. Charukauil Gopalan and another(¹ ), this Cow t held that, if any articles of food are sold by any person, whet .. er he be a dealer in them or not, and if the food is adulterated, he is liable 10 b convicted under section 16 read with section 7 of the Act. The respondents before this Court in that case were the manaJ'_er and owner of a tea stall. The case again9t them was that they sold 600 grams of sugar to the appellant, •tho~ Food lnDector, for analysis and that the sugar was adulterated. The respondents pleaded that the sugar was not sold 'as such' in the tea stall and was only used for preparing tea which alone was sold. The plea was accepted by the District Magistrate and the respondents were acquitted. The acqui'tlal was confirmed by the High Court. In appeal to this Court by the Food Inspector, om of the arguments for the respondents, was that 'they were not dealers in sugar and the sugar was not kept for sale and so they cannot be convicied under section 16 read with setcion 7 of the Act. The Court held, inter-alia, 'that sale to a Food Inspector is a sale for the purpose of section 16 of the Act, •that the article of food ;old to the F'ood Inspector n·~cd not have been taken from a larger quantity kent for sale, and tha't the person by whom the article of food was so1d to the Food Inspector need not be a dealer as such in the article.

c

D

E

F

G

H

----=---- --(!) [1971] 2 s.c.c. 322.

¶71

MOHD. YAMIN v. STATE (Mathew, I.)

¶72

351

¶73

A

¶74

. In that case it was assumed by this Court that the sugar was adulterated. Whether it was aQllltera1ed or not as a matter . of fact, this Court proceeded on the assumption that il was adul· · terated. If that be so, we see no reason to doubt the correctness . of the ratio of the case.

¶75

B We think the High Court was ri1dit in its conclusion. We dismiss the appeal.

¶76

G.C. ~ft al dismissed. ""pe

¶77

Mohammed Yamin v. Uttar Pradesh & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Yamin v. Uttar Pradesh & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Lal Sharma, etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh

S. L. Goswami versus State of Madhya Pradesh

Jagdish Prasad Alias Jagdish Prasad Gupta versus State of West Bengal

Avery India Limited versus the Second Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal

Niranjan Singh versus State of Madhya Pradesh

M. L. Sethi versus R.P. Kapur