Food adulteration law: any non-permitted colouring matter in food is enough to establish adulteration.

Section 2(1)(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was construed with the colouring-matter rules to determine when adulteration occurs. Rule 23 prohibited colouring matter except as permitted, Rules 28 and 29 identified the permitted dyes and the foods to which they could be added, and Rule 30 fixed limits for permitted colours. To avoid an absurd result and preserve the scheme of the rules, the word "and" in Section 2(1)(j) was read disjunctively as "or". On that reading, the presence of any non-permitted colouring matter in food itself constituted adulteration, without proof that the quantity exceeded prescribed limits.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 2(1)(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is to be construed as attracting adulteration only when a colouring matter other than the prescribed one is present within limits of variability, or whether the presence of any non-permitted colouring matter itself is sufficient to constitute adulteration.

Analysis: The provision had to be read with the scheme of the rules governing colouring matters. Rule 23 prohibited addition of colouring matter except as permitted, Rule 28 specified permitted coal-tar dyes, Rule 29 restricted even permitted dyes to specified foods, and Rule 30 fixed the maximum limit for permitted colours. A literal reading of the word "and" in Section 2(1)(j) would produce an absurd result by suggesting that even totally prohibited dyes could be used within prescribed limits. To avoid inconsistency and give effect to the legislative purpose, the word "and" was read disjunctively as "or".

Conclusion: The presence of a non-permitted colouring matter in the article of food by itself constituted adulteration, without any need to prove that the quantity exceeded prescribed limits. The acquittal was therefore set aside and the conviction restored.

---