Plain meaning of food standards: butter from curd still counts as butter, and adulteration follows if standards are unmet.

Butter made from curd was held to fall within the statutory definition of butter, because the phrase "prepared exclusively" was given its plain meaning and curd was treated as an intermediate stage in the milk-to-butter process. The Court read the food safety scheme as treating failure to meet the prescribed standard as adulteration by operation of law, and regarded the later insertion of the word "curd" as clarificatory. It also accepted the factual finding that the analysed sample was the same sample taken from the accused, and held that the Public Analyst's report was not vague or erroneous. The conviction was upheld, while rigorous imprisonment was replaced by a higher fine.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether butter prepared from curd falls within the definition of butter under Rule A.11.05 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. (ii) Whether the sample analysed was the same sample taken from the appellant. (iii) Whether the Public Analyst's report was so vague or erroneous that conviction could not be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether butter prepared from curd falls within the definition of butter under Rule A.11.05 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

Analysis: The definition of butter required that it be a product prepared exclusively from milk or cream of cow or buffalo, or both, and contain not less than 80 per cent milk fat and not more than 16 per cent moisture. The expression "prepared exclusively" was construed according to its plain meaning, and the Court held that butter made from curd is still butter prepared from milk, curd being only an intermediate stage in the process. The rule was read in light of the scheme of the Act, which treats failure to meet the prescribed standard as adulteration by statutory fiction. The later amendment inserting the word "curd" was treated as clarificatory of the existing position.

Conclusion: Yes. Butter prepared from curd falls within Rule A.11.05, and sale of butter below the prescribed standard constitutes an offence.

Issue (ii): Whether the sample analysed was the same sample taken from the appellant.

Analysis: The High Court's finding on identity of the sample was based on the evidence of the Food Inspector and the Health Officer, and no permissible ground was shown to disturb that factual finding.

Conclusion: Yes. The sample sent for analysis was held to be the same sample taken from the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the Public Analyst's report was so vague or erroneous that conviction could not be sustained.

Analysis: The apparent total of percentages exceeding 100 was explained by the fact that the foreign fat percentage related to the fat content and not to the entire butter sample. The report therefore clearly indicated that the butter fell below the prescribed standard.

Conclusion: No. The report was not vitiated by vagueness or error and could be acted upon.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was upheld, but the sentence of rigorous imprisonment was set aside and replaced by a higher fine.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory definition of a food article fixes a prescribed standard, failure to meet that standard amounts to adulteration by operation of law, and the definition must be given its plain and rational meaning so as to advance the object of the prevention statute.

---