Content Provider | Supreme Court of India |
---|---|
e-ISSN | 30484839 |
Language | English |
Access Restriction | NDLI |
Subject Keyword | Prevention of Food Adulteration Act sugarless Jelly 1954 s.20A Ambiguity in a penal statute |
Content Type | Text |
Resource Type | Law Judgement |
Jurisdiction | India |
Case Type | Appeal |
Court | Supreme Court of India |
Disposal Nature | Appeal Allowed |
Headnote | Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: s.20A – Impleadment of appellant who was marketer of packed food articles ‘sugarless Jelly’ – The said food article was manufactured by a separate entity – Prosecution case was that Food Inspector- Respondent no.2 purchased packed jars of Jelly from the retailer for testing – As per report of Public Analyst, the Jelly sample contained sugar and therefore was misbranded – Retailer produced a receipt showing that the jelly was purchased from appellant – Complaint filed by respondent no.2 for offence of sale of misbranded food article under s.16(1)(a)(ii) r/w s.2(ix)(g) and 7(ii) – During the course of trial, after closing of prosecution witness, the Retailer examined himself as a witness for the defence under s.315 Cr.P.C. – Subsequently, the Retailer moved an application under s.20A for impleading the appellant as an accused, which was allowed by the Special Magistrate – In the instant appeal, the plea of the appellant was that the application for impleadment under s.20A could not have been made by the Retailer – Held: Plea is not tenable – The provisions of the 1954 Act clearly distinguish between a ‘vendor’ and ‘manufacturer’ of a food article – The very purpose of s.20A is to enable the Court to implead the manufacturer or distributor during the trial of the vendor of the food article, so as to detect and punish adulteration at all stages of the supply chain. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: s.2(ia) and s.2(ix) – Adulterated and misbranded – A comparison of s.2(ia) of the 1954 Act which defines ‘adulterated’ and s.2(ix) which defines ‘misbranded’, shows that there is an overlap between the two provisions – s.2(ia)(a) includes within the definition of ‘adulterated’ a case where a food article is ‘not of the nature, substance, or quality which it purports or is represented to be’ – Whereas s.2(i)(ix)(g) includes within the definition of ‘misbranded’ the label on the package bearing any statement, design or device regarding the ingredients or the substances contained therein, which is false or misleading in any material particular; or if the package is otherwise deceptive with respect to its contents. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: s.11 – Prior notice to the accused – Held: Under the scheme of the 1954 Act, the accused has to be given prior notice, as provided under s.11, that samples of a food article manufactured and/or sold by them have been sent for analysis, before the Public Analyst prepares report – The 1954 Act does not envisage a situation such as the present case where the sample is sent for analysis, and the Public Analyst’s report is also prepared, but the marketer is informed several years later that prosecution is sought to be instituted against them – During such period, the food article being perishable in nature would most probably be incapable of being sent for re-testing to the Central Laboratory. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: s.13(1) to (3) – Whether denial of right to get Jelly sample tested by the Central Laboratory under s.13(2) of the 1954 Act would entitled quashing of proceedings against the appellant for the offence of misbranding – What is the procedure to be followed in cases where proving misbranding requires testing of the relevant food samples but the corresponding charge of adulteration has not been made – Held: It is absurd and discriminatory for the prosecution to, on one hand, rely on the report of the Public Analyst under s.13(1) for proving the offence of ‘misbranding’, and on the other hand, claim that the accused cannot avail of their right to challenge the said report as per ss.13(2) and 13(3) because it is not a case of ‘adulteration’ – In such a scenario, the word ‘adulterated’ in s.13(2) would have to be read as including ‘misbranded’ in so far as it relates to the ingredients of the concerned food article, and the relevant clauses of s.13 have to be complied with in their entirety – Therefore, where examination of the contents/ingredients of the food article is integral to proving the offence ‘misbranding’, the procedure prescribed under ss.11 to 13 of the 1954 Act has to be complied with, regardless of whether ‘adulteration’ is alleged or not – This includes the right to obtain a second opinion from the Central Laboratory under s.13(2) – The same test would apply in respect of any other offence for which penalty is prescribed under the 1954 Act – Interpretation of Statutes. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: s.2(ix)(g) – Misbranding – Label on the packaging that the Jelly is ‘sugarless’ – Case of Respondents based on Public Analyst’s Report that the Jelly contained ‘sugar/sucrose’ – Whether appellant was entitled to get Jelly sample tested by the Central Laboratory under s.13(2) of the 1954 Act – Held: Public Analyst’s finding on whether ‘sugar’ as an ingredient is present in the Jelly sample is crucial to proving the offence of ‘misbranding’ against the Appellant – Thus, the Appellant ought to have been given opportunity to make an application under s.13(2) for a second opinion from the Central Laboratory on the contents of the Jelly sample. Interpretation of Statutes: Ambiguity in a penal statute – It is settled principle of statutory interpretation that any ambiguity in a penal statute has to be interpreted in favour of the accused. |
Judge | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar |
Neutral Citation | 2019 INSC 1304 |
Petitioner | M/s Alkem Laboratories Ltd. |
Respondent | State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. |
SCR | [2019] 14 S.C.R. 1081 |
Judgement Date | 2019-11-29 |
Case Number | 1798 |
National Digital Library of India (NDLI) is a virtual repository of learning resources which is not just a repository with search/browse facilities but provides a host of services for the learner community. It is sponsored and mentored by Ministry of Education, Government of India, through its National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technology (NMEICT). Filtered and federated searching is employed to facilitate focused searching so that learners can find the right resource with least effort and in minimum time. NDLI provides user group-specific services such as Examination Preparatory for School and College students and job aspirants. Services for Researchers and general learners are also provided. NDLI is designed to hold content of any language and provides interface support for 10 most widely used Indian languages. It is built to provide support for all academic levels including researchers and life-long learners, all disciplines, all popular forms of access devices and differently-abled learners. It is designed to enable people to learn and prepare from best practices from all over the world and to facilitate researchers to perform inter-linked exploration from multiple sources. It is developed, operated and maintained from Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur.
Learn more about this project from here.
NDLI is a conglomeration of freely available or institutionally contributed or donated or publisher managed contents. Almost all these contents are hosted and accessed from respective sources. The responsibility for authenticity, relevance, completeness, accuracy, reliability and suitability of these contents rests with the respective organization and NDLI has no responsibility or liability for these. Every effort is made to keep the NDLI portal up and running smoothly unless there are some unavoidable technical issues.
Ministry of Education, through its National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technology (NMEICT), has sponsored and funded the National Digital Library of India (NDLI) project.
Sl. | Authority | Responsibilities | Communication Details |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education |
Sanctioning Authority | https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives |
2 | Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur | Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project | https://www.iitkgp.ac.in |
3 | National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur | The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project | Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in |
4 | Project PI / Joint PI | Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project |
Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon |
5 | Website/Portal (Helpdesk) | Queries regarding NDLI and its services | support@ndl.gov.in |
6 | Contents and Copyright Issues | Queries related to content curation and copyright issues | content@ndl.gov.in |
7 | National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club) | Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach | clubsupport@ndl.gov.in |
8 | Digital Preservation Centre (DPC) | Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books | dpc@ndl.gov.in |
9 | IDR Setup or Support | Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops | idr@ndl.gov.in |