TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the definition of sale in Section 2(xiii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is confined to sales of food for human consumption only or extends to any sale of an article of food regardless of its use; (ii) Whether Rule 44-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 permits a defence that Kesari dal was sold for cattle fodder and not for human consumption, so that mens rea or intention becomes relevant.
Issue (i): Whether the definition of sale in Section 2(xiii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is confined to sales of food for human consumption only or extends to any sale of an article of food regardless of its use.
Analysis: The definition of sale was construed as an exhaustive statutory definition covering the subject of the transaction, the mode of transaction, and the purpose or use of the article. The words "for human consumption or use" were held not to confine the definition to sales only for consumption by human beings, because the definition also includes sale for analysis and other non-consumptive purposes. Read with the definition of food, the Act requires that the article must be an article of food, but once that is established, the purpose for which it is sold does not control the meaning of sale. The statutory scheme of Sections 7 and 16, together with the definition, showed that the Act is aimed at the dealing in articles of food as such, not merely at sales intended for consumption.
Conclusion: The definition of sale is not confined to sales for human consumption only and extends to the sale of any article of food regardless of the use to which it is put.
Issue (ii): Whether Rule 44-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 permits a defence that Kesari dal was sold for cattle fodder and not for human consumption, so that mens rea or intention becomes relevant.
Analysis: Rule 44-A was held to impose a total prohibition on the sale, offering for sale, exposure for sale, or possession for sale of Kesari dal and its products. The rule draws its meaning from the statutory definition of sale, and that definition does not depend on the seller's intention as to ultimate use. The Act and the Rules were treated as a public-health measure of strict application, and the seller's assertion that the article was meant for cattle fodder did not displace liability. The Court also held that the contrary view in an earlier Division Bench decision was incorrect, and that the dominant line of authority supported irrelevance of intention in this context.
Conclusion: Rule 44-A creates a total ban, and neither the asserted non-human use of Kesari dal nor mens rea affords a defence.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the prosecution's construction of the Act and Rules, holding that liability depends on the sale or prohibited dealing in an article of food and not on the seller's asserted purpose of use; the second question was rendered unnecessary after the first was answered.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the statutory concept of sale is not limited to transactions for human consumption, and where a rule imposes a prohibition on an article of food, the seller's intended use or absence of mens rea does not negate liability if the article is otherwise within the Act.
TaxTMI 
