Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Milk Adulteration: Raj Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)

Date of the Judgment: October 04, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 1110

Judges: Deepak Gupta, J., Aniruddha Bose, J.

Can a person be convicted for selling milk that marginally deviates from prescribed standards? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Court upheld the conviction of an individual for selling milk that did not meet the required standards, emphasizing that even marginal deviations cannot be ignored. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose.

Case Background

On October 30, 1995, a Food Inspector collected a sample of milk from the appellant, Raj Kumar. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who received it on November 2, 1995. Upon analysis, the milk fat (MF) content was found to be 4.6%, and the milk solid non-fat (MSNF) content was 7.7%, against the prescribed standard of 8.5%. Following this, the appellant was prosecuted after obtaining consent from the Chief Medical Officer. The trial court convicted him, a decision that was upheld by both the Sessions Court and the High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the appellant, which was upheld by the Sessions Court. The High Court also affirmed the conviction. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, specifically Section 13(2). This section provides the accused with the right to have a second sample of the food analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory (CFL).

Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 states:

“On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that there was a delay in analyzing the milk sample, which could have led to the marginal shortfall in MSNF.
• It was contended that the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 were not complied with, as the appellant was not given a proper opportunity to send his second sample to the Central Food Laboratory (CFL) for analysis. The option was given three months after the sample was taken, rendering the second sample unfit for analysis.
• The complaint filed on 15.02.1996 was defective, and the defects were removed only on 27.06.1996. No option under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was given after this.
• The appellant claimed he was illiterate and could not sign, but the Food Inspector obtained his signatures.
• The appellant cited several judgments from various High Courts, arguing that marginal variations from prescribed standards should give the benefit of doubt to the accused. The quality of milk depends on various factors, including the health of the cattle, and marginal deficiencies can occur due to natural causes beyond human control.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State argued that there was no material on record to support the claim of delay affecting the sample analysis. The appellant did not summon the Public Analyst for cross-examination.
• The State contended that the appellant was given notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on 18.02.1996, and he failed to exercise his option to get the sample analyzed by the CFL.
• The State argued that the defects in the complaint did not impact the appellant’s right to get the second sample analyzed.
• The State pointed out that the signatures were verified by the lower courts and cannot be challenged.
• The State argued that the cited judgments by the appellant have been overruled or are no longer good in law.
• The State argued that once standards are laid down by the legislature, they must be followed. In the case of milk, it is not necessary to prove that the food item was unfit for human consumption. If the standards are not met, it is considered adulterated, even with marginal deviations.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed were:

1. Whether the marginal shortfall in milk solid non-fat (MSNF) content justifies conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
2. Whether there was a violation of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, regarding the opportunity to have the second sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory (CFL).
3. Whether the signatures of the appellant were valid.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Shambhu Dayal vs. State of U. P. [1979] 1 SCC 202*: The Court followed this judgment, reiterating that delay in testing samples is not a valid defense if the sample was preserved with formalin.
• M.V. Joshi vs. M.U. Shimpi and Anr. AIR (48) 1961 SC 1494*: The Court followed this judgment, stating that if the prescribed standard is not attained, the statute treats such food as adulterated.
• Municipal Committee, Amritsar vs. Hazara Singh (1975) 1 SCC 794*: The Court followed this judgment, clarifying that minimal deficiencies in milk components do not justify acquittal in food adulteration cases.
• State of Kerala vs. Parameswaran Pillai Vasudevan Nair 1975 Cri. L.J. 97*: The Court quoted with approval this judgment, emphasizing that even marginal variations of the prescribed standards are matters of serious concern.
• Dattappa vs. Buldana Municipality AIR (38) 1951 Nagpur 191*: The Court noted that this judgment has been overruled.
• Duli Chand vs. State of U.P 1987 All.L.J.971*: The Court noted that this judgment has been overruled.
• Karunan vs. Food Inspector 1985 KLT.523*: The Court noted that this judgment has been overruled.
• Ram Kumar vs. The State of Punjab 1982 (I) F .A.C. 68*: The Court noted that this judgment has been overruled.
• Hans Raj vs. The State of Punjab 1980(II) F .A.C. 396*: The Court noted that this judgment has been overruled.
• Ujagar Singh vs. The State of Punjab 1980 (I) F .A.C. 432*: The Court noted that this judgment has been overruled.
• Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality vs. Karingarappully Co­op. Milk Society Ltd. & Ors. 1986 K.L.J. 29*: The Court followed this judgment, stating that the proposition laid down in Karunan’s case is not good in law.
• State of Punjab vs. Ramesh Kumar 1984 Cri. L.J. 381*: The Court followed this judgment, stating that Ujagar Singh’s case is no longer good in law.
• State of Punjab vs. Teja Singh 1976 Cri. L.J. 1648*: The Court followed this judgment, stating that Ujagar Singh’s case is no longer good in law.
• Santosh Kumar vs. Municipal Corporation and Anr. (2000) 9 SCC 151*: The Court held that this judgment is per incuriam and does not lay down any legal proposition that provisions of Section 433 of Cr.PC can be invoked in such cases.
• N. Sukumaran Nair vs. Food Inspector, Mavelikara (1997) 9 SCC 101*: The Court held that this judgment is per incuriam and does not lay down any legal proposition that provisions of Section 433 of Cr.PC can be invoked in such cases.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily concerned with upholding the standards set by the legislature for food safety. The Court emphasized that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is a consumer-centric legislation aimed at protecting the public from adulterated food. The Court noted that even marginal deviations from prescribed standards cannot be ignored, as they can have a cumulative adverse effect on public health. The Court also clarified that it is not necessary to prove that the adulterated food is injurious to health; the mere fact that it does not meet the prescribed standards is sufficient for conviction.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument that marginal deficiencies should be overlooked, stating, “Even marginal deviation from the prescribed standard cannot be ignored.” The Court also emphasized that “The Act is a piece of consumer legislation. It regulates to some extent the consumer-supplier relations” and that “The Act does not make a distinction between cases coming under it on the basis of the degree of adulteration.” The Court further clarified that “If the prescribed standard is not attained, the statute treats such butter, by fiction, as an adulterated food, though in fact it is not adulterated.”

The Court also considered the argument that the sentence should be commuted due to the passage of time. However, the Court rejected this argument, holding that the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 cannot be reduced. The Court also clarified that it cannot exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to violate the specific provisions of the law.

Key Takeaways

• Marginal deviations from prescribed food standards are not to be ignored under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
• The right to have a second sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory (CFL) must be exercised in a timely manner.
• Courts cannot reduce the minimum sentence prescribed for food adulteration under the guise of equity or passage of time.
• The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is a consumer-centric legislation aimed at protecting public health.

Directions

The Court directed the appellant to surrender within four weeks to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. A copy of the judgment was to be forwarded to the trial court for appropriate action if the appellant did not surrender.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that even marginal deviations from the prescribed standards for food items, such as milk, constitute adulteration under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and cannot be ignored. The court clarified that the Act does not provide any leeway for marginal deviations and that the standards must be strictly adhered to. The judgment also reinforces that the courts cannot reduce the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act, nor can they exercise powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to violate the specific provisions of the law. This case reinforces the strict interpretation of food safety laws and the importance of adhering to prescribed standards.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of Raj Kumar for selling adulterated milk. The Court emphasized that even marginal deviations from prescribed standards cannot be ignored, and the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, must be strictly followed. The judgment reinforces the importance of maintaining food safety standards and protecting public health.