The Supreme Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition challenging preventive detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act for food adulteration. The Court held that systematic food adulteration is prejudicial to community supplies and affirmed that non-communication of prior conviction details did not violate constitutional safeguards.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
470
BANKATLAL
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
October 17, 1974
[P. N. BHAGWATI, AND R. S. SARKARIA, Ji.)
B
Maintmance of Internal Stcurity Act 1971--S. 3(1) (a) (iii)-Scope of-"Supply and Service" meaning of.
Whet her detaining authority bound to convey all the details of previous convic· tions of the detenu.
Pursuant to two orders of detention under s. 3(1) (a) (iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 the petitioner was detained on the ground that he was indulging in adulteration of essential foodstuffs and was in possession of donkey dung, sawdust, $'PSum, ICI colours and coloured plastic paper used and intended for use in adulteration of foodstuffs; that the samples of foodstuffs sold by him, on examination were found to contain highly adulterated material; that the recovery of huge quantity of adulterated foodstuffs and adulterated material which is unhygenic and injurious to public health proved that by indulging in the business of manufacture, sale and storage for sale of such egsential commodities he had been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenanc:c of supplies essential to the commu· nity and that he could not be prevented from doing so by prosecution unde1· the Prevention of 1'ood Adulteration Act. Before the confirmation of the order Clf detention by the Government the petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition before the Hi~h Court, which was dismissed. In a petition under article 32 of the Constf... tution it was contended (i) that the grounds·of detention were non-existent; (ii) thnt the grounds communicated to the detenu did not have a direct nexus with the main· tcnance of supplies and servicea essential to the community; and (Iii) that In an affidavit filed before the Hl11h Court the Distri1:t Magistrate relied upon an earlier prosecution and conviction of the petitioner under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but failed to mention this ground in the order of detentioll, in consequence of which the grounds communfoated were vague.
C
D
B
Dismissing the petition,
HELD : (I) It cannot be said that the grounds of detention were non-existent. On the report of the public analyst the chilli powder and haldiwhole would be deemed to be adulterate~ articles of food falling within the definition of cl. (c) and (f) respectively and Amchoor within the definition of cl. (b) and (c) of s. 2(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In the light of the information received by the detaining authority that !he petiti?ner had been systematically adulterating· foodstuffs on a llU'ge scale, the discovery m bulk of extraneous matter stored in tht: premises which could be used for adulteration could not be said to be irrelevant. [477 H; 478 A-BJ (2.)(a) Supplies in the context of s. 3(l)(a) (Iii) means supply of essential commodities or foodstuffs in a wholesome form. It does not mean the supply Of their ad1J!terated substitutes. Engagement in the process of adulteration of foodstuffs meant for sale is an activity highly prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, more so when it is done ill an organised manner and on a large scale. {478 F·G] Misrl Lal v. Th~ State A.I.R 1951 Pat. 134 F. B. over-ruled, and Harl Ram v, State (1974) 25, RaJ. Law Weekly p. 26 approved.
(b) Food adulteration activity particularly of an organised kind is an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community which may justify an order of detention under s. 3(1) (a)(iii) of the Act One of the primary necessaries of life is food; one of the elementary obligation~ of a welfare state is to ensure food to its citizens. The concepts of "supplies" and s"ervlces" interm/ngle in the discharge of that obligation by the State. Maintenance
F'
G
B.
BANKATLAL v. RAJASTHAN (Sarkoria, J.)
4 71
A of sale of pure food stuffs to the public is be>th a "supply" and a"service". A person who sells adulterated food to the people not only evinces a tendency to disrupt tho even flow of essential supplies but also interrupts service to the community. (479 G·H]
Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, Writ petition No. 1999 of 1973 decided on 21-8-1974 referred to.
B (c) One broad test for the exercise of the power which the detaining authority may keep in view, particularly in a case of adulteration of foodstuffs is whether the material before it about the activities. of the person sought to be detained in the proximate past and present, is such as to enable it to make a reasonable prognosis of the probability of that person to behave similarly in' the future. In th~ present case on. the material before him the District Magistrate could reasonably be satisfied that unless detained, the detenu would be likely to continue the food adulteration activity in the future and it was, therefore, necessary to detain him. (481 B & DJ
c (3) The mere fact that all the details cf his previous prosecutions and their results or his conviction were not conveyed to the detenu did not contravene art. 22(S) of the Constitution and s. 8(1) of the Act. All these fact were within the know· ledge of the detenu. There was sufficient indication In the first as well as the second order of detention about the previous prosecution of the petitioner for food adulteration offences. What constitutes the substance of the grounds is the factum of the raid and the discovery of adulterated chilli p~wder, Amchur, Haldi and a large quan· tity of odd materials such as sawdust, donkey dung etc. which, in the opinion of the detaining authority, were suspected adulterants. D Tho . prosonco of those suspected adulterants In bulk, safely stored in tins may not by Itself amount to an off once under tho penal law but It was a relevant clrcwnstanco which could be taken Into account by tho detaining authority in reach· Ins Its subjective satisfaction, (381 H; 482 B; 481 OJ
D
ORIGINAL JUR1so1c;r10N : Writ Petition No. 292 of 1974. Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia
E A. K. Sen, Badrl Das Sharma and S. K. Bagga, for the Petitioner~ L .. M. Singhvi, S. M. Jain and S. K. Jain, for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SARKARJA J, The petitioner challenges the validity of the order of his detention made by the District Magistrate, Jodhpur under s. 3(l)(a) F (iii) of the Maintenance oflnternal Security Act, 1971 (for short the Act) and prays for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus.
The order of detention was passed on March 18, 1974. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was taken into custody on March 19, 1974.
The detention order (for short, the first order) which was served on G the detenu at the time of his arrest on March 19, 1974. states :
" .... whereas, the said Shri Bankat Lal has been indulging in rampant adulteration of essential foodstuff and supply there· of for consumption by the community at large, operating a factory and firm under the name and style of Laxmi Narain Moondra situated in Makrana Mohalla, Jodhpur for such adulteration, II so much so that 170 odd bags of material which among other things, includes 7 tins of sawdust, 15 bags of co!our (yellow and Gherwa), 70 bags of chilli seed, black colour leaves, which look like tea leaves, one bag of gypsum (khaddi) power and a tin of
[1975] 2 S C.R.
472
SUPREME COURT llEPORTS
animal dung, used and intended for use in adulteration of foodstaffs, which are piosonous and injurious to. public health were recovered from your godown. and one floor mill owned and/or controlled by the said Shri Bankatlal;
A
B
c
D
The second order containing further particulars of the grounds of detention was served on the petitioner cm March 20, 1974. It reads:
E
F
G
_ff
:SANKATLAL v. 11.AJASTHAN (Sarkaria, 1.) 47 3
A
B
Samples of each of the above foodstuffs were taken on 11-31974 by paying you the price of each sample in the presence of c Motbirs and forms IV and V were given to you; sealing the arti· cles in your presence and copy of the recovery memo, was also furnished to you.
I
E
G
H
[1975] 2 s.c.R.
474
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
| (f)On13-3-1974and14·3-1974. | A |
|---|---|
| Fromtheflourmillunderyourcontrolinwhichfoodlicence No.1666BookNo10dated13·3·1973inthenameof your wifeSrimatiRamadeviwasalsorecovered.....:.. I.Elevenbagsofhuskedseedsofchillies. 2.Twotinssuspectedtocontain'Donkeydung/ 3.Eleven-tinsofsuspectedmaterialwithsawdust. 4.Onetin ofyellowsawdust. 5.Onetin ofsuspectedmangoseedpowder. _6._Twotinsofwastematerial ofDhaniya, |
|
| 2.ThatthesamplesoffoodstuffssoldbyyoutotheFood Inspectoron11-3-1974wereexaminedbythePublicAnalystand foundonexaminationhighlyadulterated containing: |
c |
| 1.Chillipowder-totalash8.12%andashinsolublein H.C.C.1·99%containssiliciousmattersandetc. 2.Haldiwhichcontains46·24%heavilyinfestedwithinse- ctsinsuchmaterial. 3.Amchurwhichcontains20%extraneousmatter. Thisfurtherconfirmsyourdealinginadulteratedfood- stuffsanditssupplyto thecommunity. |
D |
| 3 That itwasfoundfromthestatements of HiraNandand your landlordRameshChandra Mathurwliosepremisesareren- tedbyyoufor hoardingandmanufacturingabovefoodstuffs thatyouareengagedinsuchbusinessfor alongtimenowand youputsuchadulteratedcommoditiesforsaletotheinnocent customersaspurefoodstuffs. |
E |
| 4.ThatinordertoescapetheconsequencesofY,ouractions, youdalibera.telyfailedtoproduceyourfirm'sRegistration certificateissuedunderthe'ShopsandCommercialEstablish- mentAct'. |
F |
| 5.Thatyoudeliberatelyrefusedtoopentheflourmillesta.,,, blished underyourcontrolinthenameofyourwifeSrimati RamadeviandpreventedtheHealthOfficerfromtakingthe ·searchoftheabovemillinyourprttsence.However,byinvok· ing theprovisionsof section10of thePreventionof Food AdulterationAct,1954,themillwasunlockedinthepresenceof motbirsandhugeadulteratedfoodstuffsandmaterialusedfor adulteratingfoodstuffswererecovered. |
G |
| 6.Thatinyourmainshop,youfraudulentlyanddeliberately exhibitedwritingsoncardboardstyled'foodstuffsnotforhu- manconsumption'toavoidthechecking.However,thereco· veryoftheadulterated articlesonthecontraryprovethatnone _of_thesearticle$areusedother thanasfoodstuffs. |
BANKATLAL v. RAJASTHAN (Sarkaria, J.)
4 7 5
A 7. That the recovery of huge quantity of above adulterated foodstuffs and adulterated material which is unhygenic and injurious to the public health goes to prove that by indulging in the business of manufacture sale and storage for sale of such essential commodities you have been acting prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community and have been doing so for several years past and further, that you are 8 likely to continue to indulge in this nefarious activity injurious to the public health and prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community and that you could not be prevented from doing so by mere prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which is being contemplated and therefore, it was necessary to detain you by invoking the provisions of s. 3 (1) (a) (iii) of Maintenance of Internal Security c Act, 1971."
Now some other material facts may be set out. The State Government approved the order of detention on March 23, 1974. On or about the 6th April, 1974 the petitioner moved the High Court of Rajasthan under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that his detention was illegal. The D High Court dismissed the writ application on May 6, 1974. The reference to the Advisory Board was made on April 10,1974 in compliance withs. 10. The detenu made a representation, dated 16/17th April 1974, which was despatched by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur, on April 17, 1974, and was received by the Government on April 20, 1974. The Government then forwarded that representation to the Advisory Board which considered it and heard the detenu in E person and reported to the Government that there was sufficient cause for the detention. The State Government confirmed the detention order on May 11, 1974.
Mr. Ashok Sen, learned Counsel for the petitioner has tried to make out these points in his. arguments: (1) The grounds of detention are non-existent; (2) The grounds communicated to the detenu are F not germane having a direct nexus with the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community; (3) The District Magistrate had stated in his affidavit before the High Court that before passing the order of detention, he had come to know that the petitioner had been prosecuted and convicted earlier under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. This ground which must have weighed with the District Magistrate in making the detention order, was not mentioned G in the grounds of detention communicated to the detenu w~o was, in consequence, deprived of the opportunity of expfaining the circums· .tances in which he was earlier convicted.' Failure to do so leaves the ground communicated vague and the detention is on that account illegal.
In elaboration of the first point, Mr. Sen submits that in the first H place, the donkey dung, saw-dust; gypsum, I. C. I. Colours, coloured plastic paper, dhaniya waste, etc. which were· found in the .premises were not adulterants. They were kept there for innocuous purposes.
[1975] 2 s.c.R.
476
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
The donkey-dung was meant for being used as fuel; the sawdust was there for preserving slabs of ice. Secondly, there was no evidence, whatever, that these articles were being used to adulterate the spic1:s or other foodstuffs for sale. It is stressed that none of the foodstuffs taken from the premises was found adulterated or mixed with these alleged adultt:rants viz., donkey-dung, sawdust I. C. I. colour etc. The only extraneous matter in the sample of chilli powder detected by the Public Analyst-proceeds the argument-was 1 ·99 % sand. Presence of such a small percentage of sand in that sand-swept country may be an act of GOd and not of the petitioner; and the same could be the reason for the presence of stone-dust in the sample of Amchoor. About the presence of insects, 46 ·24 % in the sample of Haldi-whole it is contended that the same had also been brought about by the process of nature and not by human hand. Strictly speaking, maintains the Counsel, none of the foodstuffs in the premises had been found adulterated; the three samples examined by the Public Analyst were only sub-standard. It is urged that there was no nexus between the alleged adulterants and the foodstuffs the samples of which were found sub-standard. The detaining authority had therefore in taking into account these alleged adulterant, 'erred and based the order of detention on an irrelevant consideration. Since it cannot be predicated, argues the Counsel, to what extent the authority was influenced by this irrelevant matter, the order stands vitiated.
Dr. Singh vi, learned Counsel for the State, submits that the reports of the Public Analyst, far from excluding, strongly indicated the pos· sibility of the samples of chilli powdc:r and Amchoor containing a substantial percentage of animal dung, sawdust, gypsum and waste matter. In particular, it is stressed that the dust and stones found in Amchur were probably of gypsum. The Analyst, it is pointed out, did not say t~at duststones and coriander seeds were the only components of what he compendiously describes as 20% "extraneous matter". It is further submitted that the fibre and insoluble ash found in the chilli powder might be due to the mixing of the adulterants ( othe:r than I. C. I. colour) found in the premises. On these premises, it is maintained, the seizure of the aforesaid. adulterants along with the adulterated foodstuffs for sale, was highly relevant and germane to the object of the de.tention viz., maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.
Taking the first points first, the presence of donkey-dung, saw-· dust, gypsum, I. C. I. colours, refuse, coloured plastic, papers etc. stored in tins, bags or other receptacles, in premises where spices and other foodstuffs wer1: also lying stored, some of which were found adulterated was by itself a suspicious circumstance. The petitioner held no license to deal in I. C. I. colours or gypsum etc. At no stage, the petitioner said that the animal dung had been stored by him for use as fuel and we doubt very much that donkey dung is so used. Nor did he say that the sawdust had been kept there for preserving ice or for other domestic, use. With winter waning, the season must still be cool on the 11th March. The question of using ice in that season did not arise. Although sawdust, gypsum, I. C. I. colours etc. are articles of innocent
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
471
BANKATLAL v. RAJASTHAN (Sarkaria, /.)
| Moisturecontent • |
6·82% |
|---|---|
| Total Ash· • |
8'12% |
| AlihinsolubleinIre! | 1·99% |
| Crudefibre | 28'16 % |
D Itis evident that there was an excess of insoluble ash (1·99 %) which according to the particulars conveyed to the detenu, was siliclous matter, sand etc. The possibility of gypsum being a component of this insoluble ash had not been ruied out.
There could be no doubt that on the basis of the reports of thepublic Analyst, the chilli powder, Amchoor and Haldi~whole taken. . from the premises of the petitioner were prima f acie adulterated E articles. ·
Section 2(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 provides:
F
G
On the report of the Public Analyst the chilli powder and Haldiwhole would be deemed to be 'adulterated articles of food' faHing .. within the above quoted clauses (c) and (f) respectively, while. Amchoor R would be covered both by clauses (b) and (c).
Two things. emerge clear from the above discussion. First, that the chilli powder, Amchoor and Haldi-whole· of whiCh samples were
[1975] 2 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
478
taken were adulterated articles of food. Second, in the light of the information received by the detaining authority that the petitioner had been systematically adulterating food-stuffs on a large-scale, the discovery in bulk of extraneous matter stored in the premises, which could be used for adulteration, could not be said to be irrelevant. By no stretch of'reasQning, therefore, could it be said that the grounds of detention were non-existent.
A
B
This takes us- to the second point. It raises the question: Is food adulteration activity an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services to the community? For reasons that follow, the .answer to this question, in our opinion must be in the affirmative. Section 3(1) of the Act runs thus: "The Central Government or the State Government may, c (a) if satisfied with respect to any person (including a foreigner) that with a view to preventing him from acting.in any manner prejudicial to (i) (ii) D (iii) the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained." Sub-section (2) specially empowers the District Magistrate, E Additional District Magistrate and the Commissioner of Police to :make an order on the basis of their subjective satisfaction. It is not disputed that spices such a.s chilli powder, Amchoor, Haldi etc. are 'foodstuffs' and as such are commodities essential to 1he life of the community. 'Supplies' in the context of s. 3(1) (a) (iii) means the supply of essential commodities or foodstuffs in a wholesome F form. It does not mean thd supply of their adulterated substitute. There can be no doubt therefore, that engagement in the process of adulteration of foodstuffs meant for sale, is an activity highly prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the -community, morn so when it is done in an organised manner and on a large scale. In Misri Lal v. The State (1), a Full Bench of the Patna High Court, G speaking through Imam J. (as he then was) took a different view in :these terms: "I do not think that the W\lrds 'maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community could reasonably carry the meaning that any one who adulterated foodstuffs would be acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies or H the continuity of supplies. It is true that adulterated foodstuff 1. A.I.R. 1951 Pat. 134 F.B.
c
BANKATLAL v. RAJASTHAN (Sarkaria, /,)
4 7 9
t
A supplied to the community may be harmful to its health, but supplying such adulterated foodstuff would not be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies. The Act does not speak of profiteering, much less profiteering at the expense of the health of the community.
The above, we think, is too narrow a view. If it was intended.to lay B it down as an absolute proposition oflaw, that in no circumstances food adultertion activity can be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, we would, with respect, disapprove it as not enunciating a correct principle. The view in Misri Lal's. case (supra) was dissented from by a Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Hari Ram v. State. (1) Commenting on the decision of Misrf /al' s case, that Court said:
c
"In our opinion the crucial words of the statute are"acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies". The burden is not on maintenance as it merely imports. continuity. The essence of the matter is that the act should not prejudicial to the. supply. A person is said to act to the detriment or acts injuriously. The next question is D supply of what? We have already said the commodity which is essential to the community. Ata (flour) is certainly one of such articles and probaP!y the most basic for keeping the soul and body together. If ata is adulterated with some powder, what is supplied is not a commodity essential to the community but its counterfeit. The qbject of the Security Act is to deal effectively with the threats to the organized life and to the security of E India .... "
"In essence we regret to have to repeat that supply means the supply of.essential commodity and not its counterfeit and those who are engaged in the process of counterfeiting an essential commodity are certainly acting prejudicially to the maintenance of Supply of the essential commodity. In our opinion, therefore, adulterating an essential commodity is acting prejudicially fo F the maintenance of its supply and the provisions of sec. 3(1) (a) (iii) are clearly attracted."
This seems to be the correct line of approach, but it does not stop. at maintenance of "supplies" only. It extends further to "services·~. also. One of the primary necessaries of life is food; one of the e!ez: G mentary obligations of a welff\re state is to ensure food to its citizens. The concepts of "supplies" and "services" intermingle in the discharge of that obligation by the State. Maintenance of sale of pure foodstuffs to the public, therefore, is both a "supply" and a "service". A person who sells adulterated food to the people not only evinces a tendency to disrupt the even flow of essential supplies but also interrupts service . to ~he community. Recently in Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar, a. H decision to which one of us was a party-the connotation, scope and inter-relationship of the terms "supplies" and "services" in s. 3 (l}
(1) (1974) 25 Raj. Law Weekly p. 26.
[l 97 5] 2 s.c.JR.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
480
(a) (iii) of the Act came up for examination in the context of blackA m'lrketing in foodgrains. What was said then may usefully be extracted now:
" "Light and power" thus are commodities; so also food and water. Yet who will deny that light is a service or drinking water, for that m'l.tter? The touchstone of social control is that it must be a thing essential for the existence of the community; when crystalised it is supplies when sublimated it is services. It depends in most cases on the angle from which you view and lens you use. Food is supplies, so shipping and wagons kerosene and gasoline. And yet they are services. At a feeding c;:ntre for starving children you supply food, serve gruel."
B
F.>od adulteration activity, therefore, particularly of an organized kind, as in the present case, is au activity prejudicial to the maintenan<:e of supplies and services essential to the life of the community which m1y j11~tify an order of preventive dentention under s. 3(1) (a)(iii).
C
Wa will, h)w;:var, sound a note of c1ution. The Act gives lt· trurdin1ry pJw;:r of high potency to the Executive. Exercised with d: discretbn and cire, it m1y prove to b;: an effective weapon for fiihting social evils, enc)mimsed by the statute, that are eating into the vit'l.ls of the N 1tion and pJse a c1priciously, the power ma;Y t11rn into an ~ngine of oppression, pJsing a threat to the democratic way of life, itself. The need for utm')st good faith and caution in the ex'!rcise of this pJwer, therefore, cannot be over-emphasised.
D
B;it evary p;:tty, or ordinary· act of adulteration of foodstuffs will E not justify preventive action under the Act. It is only adulteration cirried on h'lbitually or in a big way th9.t throws out of gear the even tem'J of life. Only big whales plunging to prey unleash tidal wavc:s which diiturb the even keel of communal life, the little fry acting in a sm'l.!l way in their little world, matter little. They hardly cause a ripple to the even flow of supplies and services. In simple ordinary cases of adulteration, therefore, where there are no circumstances pre-indicative of the offender's propensity to indulge in adulteration in the future, it · Jl m9.y not be proper to exercise the power of preventive detention. Where the m9.laise is outgrown and m'!.lignant .the preventive "radiotherapy" sanctioned by the Act can properly be applied. It is here th1t the distinction batween the concepts of preventive detention and punitive incarceration C)mes in for importance. Speaking for this Court in Haradhan Sahav.Stateof'West Bengaf(l) the learned Chief Justice brought out this distinction thus: G
E
G
"The i:pwer of preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention. The power of preventive detention is a precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation. It m1y or m1y not relate to an offence. It is not a parallel proceeding. It does not overlap with prosecution even if it relics on certain facts for which prosecution may be launched or may have been launched. An order of preventive detention may be (1) Writ Petition No.1999 of 1973 decided on 21-8-1974,
,,
H
.BANKATLAL v. RAJA:STHAN (Sarkariµ,, J.) 4 81
A
made with or without prosecution and in anticipation or afte1 discharge or even acquittal. The pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention. An order of preventive detention is also not a bar to prosecution."
One broad test therefore, for the exercise of the power which the detaining authority may usefully keep in view, particularly in a case B of adulteration of foodstuffs, is : "Whether the material before it about the; activities of the person sought to be detained, in the proximate past and present, is such as to enable it to Il).ake a reasonable prognosis of the probability of that person to behave similarly in the future. The nature and process of the activity, its magnitude, its impact on the public generally and the incidence of the evil in the locality or in the State generally, are some of the relevant factors which the authority c may usefully take into consideration in arriving at its satisfaction.
Here it is clear from the facts and circumstances stated above that on the material before him the District Magistrate could reasonably be satisfied that, unless detained, the detenu would be likely to continue the food adulteration activity in the future and it was therefore necessary to detain him. Accordingly this conD tention also must be rejected.
In regard to the third point, viz., non-communication of particular of the previous conviction of the petitioner, it may be observed that the District Magistrate, Shri Zutshi, who made the detention order, averred in the counter-affidavit which he had filed before the High Court, that at the time of making the impugned order, he knew that the petiE tioner had been previously prosecuted for offences punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but the judgment of the case in which he was prosecuted, was not available. Thus the detaining authority did not know whether the previous prosecution of the petitioner had resulted in his conviction. That was why he did not mention the fact of this conviction, as di~tinguished from prosecution, in the particulars of the grounds of detention communicated to the detenu. F It is note worthy that the grounds of detention were incorporated by the detaining authority in the order of detention itself, which has been quoted in extenso earlier }n this judgment. What constitutes the substance of 'the grounds is the factum of the raid and the discovery of adulterated . chilli powder, Amchur and Haldi and a large quantity of odd materials such as sawdust, donkey-dung etc. which in the opinion of the detaining authority-were-and we think for good reasons G -suspected adulterants. The presence of these suspected adulterants in bulk, safely storea in tins, may not by itself amount to an offence under the penal law but it was a relevant circumstance which could be · taken into account by the detaining authority in reaching its subjective satisfaction.
The mere fact, therefore, that all the details of his previous proH secutions. and their results or his conviction were not conveyed to the detenu did hot contravene .Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution and s. 8(1). of the Act. All these facts were within the knowledge of the detenu. In any case, he could, if he so desired, ask for these particulars. It
[1975) 3 s.c.~ ..
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
482
A has been admitted before us, as was done before the High Court, that the petitioner was only once convicted for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. That conviction, it is submitted by Mr. Sen, was based on his confession and the petitioner had mad~ that confession on the advice of his Counsel in order to escape the harass .. ment of a protracted trial. As already noticed, there was sufficient indication in the first as well B as the second order of detention about the previous prosecution of the: petitioner for a food adulteration offence. He was heard in person by the Ad\ isory Board and had every opportunity "to explain the circumstances in which he was previously prosecuted and convicted. Thus the objection with regard to the non-communication of these details of previous prosecution and conviction is merely an after· thought. c No other point was raised before us. In the result the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. D P. B. R. Petition dismissed.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether engagement in the adulteration of foodstuffs meant for sale constitutes an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.
Whether the failure to communicate specific details of previous prosecutions and convictions to the detenu violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Whether the detaining authority had sufficient material to reasonably forecast that the petitioner would likely continue the adulteration activity in the future.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Bankatlal
State of Rajasthan
P. N. Bhagwati
R. S. Sarkaria
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
