1974 (7) TMI 127 - HC - Indian Laws

Conviction for Adulterated Milk Sales under Food Safety Act: Upholding Standards and Accountability

State of Kerala Versus Parameswaran Pillai Vasudevan Nair

The High Court convicted the respondent for selling adulterated milk under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Despite initial acquittal based on ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the sale of milk by the respondent was adulterated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. Whether the percentage of added water in the milk sample was negligible and could be ignored.3. The applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Criminal Appeals Nos. 235 and 236 of 1964 to the present case.4. The binding nature of the Supreme Court's observations under Article 141 of the Constitution.5. The interpretation and application of the standards prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Adulteration of Milk:The court established that the respondent sold 660 ml of cow milk to the Food Inspector, which was found to be adulterated as per the Public Analyst's report. The milk sample contained 4.8% milk fat, 7.7% milk solids-non-fat, and a freezing point of 0.48^0C, indicating the presence of not less than 9% added water. The court emphasized that the milk did not conform to the standards prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, making it adulterated.2. Negligible Variation in Adulteration:The Magistrate initially acquitted the respondent, considering the added water percentage negligible. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that any deviation from the prescribed standards should not be ignored. The court noted that the Act does not distinguish between degrees of adulteration, and even marginal variations are matters of serious concern. The court held that the standard fixed under the Act must be observed in every detail, and condoning such variations would alter the standard itself.3. Applicability of Supreme Court's Decision:The court examined the Supreme Court's decision in Criminal Appeals Nos. 235 and 236 of 1964, where the acquittal was based on the peculiar facts and public interest considerations. The High Court clarified that the observations regarding the borderline variation were speculative and not a binding precedent on the question of law. The court emphasized that the Supreme Court's decision was specific to the facts of that case and did not set a general rule for marginal variations in food adulteration cases.4. Binding Nature of Supreme Court's Observations:The court discussed the scope of Article 141 of the Constitution, which mandates that the law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts. However, the court noted that not every statement in a Supreme Court judgment is binding, especially those not related to questions of law. The court cited several Supreme Court decisions to support the view that general observations should be confined to the facts of the case and not applied broadly without analyzing the specific provisions of the Act.5. Interpretation of Standards under the Act:The court highlighted that the standards prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, were fixed after due deliberation and consultation with competent authorities. The court reiterated that it is not within the court's jurisdiction to question the reasonableness or correctness of these standards. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Jagdish Prasad v. The State of West Bengal, which held that any deviation from the prescribed standards constitutes an offence under the Act. The court concluded that the sale of milk not conforming to the statutory standards is an offence, regardless of the degree of adulteration.Conclusion:The High Court set aside the acquittal, convicted the respondent under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, and sentenced him to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, with an additional month of imprisonment in default of payment. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed standards to protect public health and prevent food adulteration.