Skip to content


State of Maharashtra Vs. Baburao Ravaji Mharulkar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal;Food Adulteration
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 460 of 1984
Judge
Reported inAIR1985SC104; (1984)86BOMLR594; 1985CriLJ508; 1984(2)SCALE643; (1984)4SCC540; [1985]1SCR1053
ActsPrevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Rule 5; Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 2 and 16(1); Constitution of India - Article 136
AppellantState of Maharashtra
RespondentBaburao Ravaji Mharulkar and ors.
Appellant Advocate M.N. Shroff, Adv
Respondent Advocate V.S. Desai and ; J.S. Wad, Advs.
Prior historyFrom the Judgment and Order dated September 14, 1982 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 440 of 1982--
Excerpt:
- [a.n. ray,; g.k. mitter,; k.s. hegde,; p. jaganmohan reddy and; s.m. sikri, jj.] the rayala corporation (p) ltd. manufactured halda typewriters in india with materials imported from sweden. initially it made purchases through a firm known as a.b. atvidabergs (later known as facit a.b.). in 1963 the rayala corporation decided to import certain materials through another firm called the associated swedish steels a.b., sweden (assab). appellant no. 1 a swedish national, was at the relevant time export manager of a.b. atvidabergs; in 1966 he also became a director of rayala corporation. in november 1968 appellant no. 1 was travelling by aircraft from singapore to karachi. the aircraft became grounded at delhi. the director of enforcement, new delhi, acting under the foreign exchange..........against the minimum of 10% prescribed by paragraph a. 11.02.08 of appendix b of the prevention of food adulteration rules, 1955. the learned chief judicial magistrate of kohlapur thought that it was impossible to attain the standard of purity prescribed by paragraph a. 11.02.08 of appendix b of the prevention of food adulteration rules, 1955, as ice cream was but a preparation of milk and the standard of purity prescribed for buffalo milk was but a minimum of 5% milk fat. the learned magistrate was, therefore, of the view that rule 5 read with paragraph a. 11.02.08 of appendix b was impossible of compliance and. therefore, bad in law. on appeal by the state, a learned single judge of the high court of bombay dismissed the appeal in limine. the state has preferred an appeal to this court.....
Judgment:

O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.

1. Special Leave granted.

2. The Food Inspector, 'E' Ward, Rajarampuri, purchased a sample of ice cream from the shop of the 4th respondent-firm, the partners of which were respondents 1 to 3. After following the procedure prescribed by statute, one part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst showed that the sample of ice cream contained 5.95% of milk fat as against the minimum of 10% prescribed by paragraph A. 11.02.08 of Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kohlapur thought that it was impossible to attain the standard of purity prescribed by paragraph A. 11.02.08 of Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, as ice cream was but a preparation of milk and the standard of purity prescribed for buffalo milk was but a minimum of 5% milk fat. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, of the view that Rule 5 read with paragraph A. 11.02.08 of Appendix B was impossible of compliance and. therefore, bad in law. On appeal by the State, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay dismissed the appeal in limine. The State has preferred an appeal to this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. We do not have the slightest hesitation in allowing the appeal. We are unable to appreciate why the circumstance that the standard of milk fat for buffalo milk is 5% should render it impossible for ice cream to contain a minimum percentage of 10% milk fat. There are several ways by which the higher percentage of milk fat in ice cream be attained. The most elementary method is to heat the milk sufficiently to reduce the percentage of water and increase the percentage of milk fat. Another obvious method is to add cream containing a high percentage of milk fact separately to the milk before making ice cream out of it. We do not have to advise caterers and restaurateurs about how ice cream containing the minimum prescribed percentage of milk fat should be prepared. Section 2(ia)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 provides that an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if the quality or purity of the article of food falls below the prescribed standard, which renders it injurious to health. Section 2(ia)(m) provides that an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard, but which does not render it injurious to health. In the case before us, there is nothing to show that the low percentage of milk fat renders the ice cream injurious to health. Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 provides that standard of quality of the various articles of food specified in Appendix B to these rules are to be as defined in that Appendix. Paragraph A. 11.02.08 of Appendix B prescribed a minimum standard of 10% milk fat in the case of ice cream, kulfi and chocolate ice cream. There cannot be the least doubt that the ice cream sold by the first respondent was adulterated within the meaning of Section 2(ii)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The first and the fourth respondents are, therefore, liable to be convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954. So far as respondents 2 and 3 are concerned, there is nothing to indicate that they were incharge of or were in any way responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. Their acquittal is confirmed. Respondents 1 and 4 are convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and each of them is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of three months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. In default of payment of fine they shall suffer a imprisonment for a further term of one month. We are imposing the minimum sentence of imprisonment prescribed by the proviso to Section 16(1) as the offence was committed quite some years ago and we are now interfering with an order of acquittal and this appears to be a first offence.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //