AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Somnath Iyer, J.—The charge against the accused was that he had adulterated an article of food and so committed an offence punishable u/s 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which reads:
No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell, or distribute--
(i) any adulterated food;
XX X XX 2. P.W. 1 Shivappa gave evidence that he purchased 600 gms. of a substance called long bason from the accused and that its analysis revealed that the substance so purchased was an admixture of long bason and Kesari Dal. The report of the analyst establishes beyond doubt that what was sold by the accused to P.W. 1 was adulterated long bason.
But Section 7 of the Prevention of" Food Adulteration Act punishes adulteration of food and not the adulteration of other substances and food is defined by Section 2(v) of the Act thus:
"(v) ''food'' means any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes--
(a) any article which ordinarily entered into, or is used in the composition or preparation of human food, and
(b) any flavouring matter or condiments.
So, unless the substance which is adulterated is a substance used as food or drink for human consumption, the adulteration is not an offence u/s 7 of the Act.
P.W. 1 admitted that long bason is used for the same purpose for which soap-nut powder was used and that it was also used as cattle feed. He gave no evidence that long bason is used for human consumption. That being so, the essential ingredient, the establishment of which is imperative u/s 7 of the Act, did not exist in the present case.
Moreover, the evidence of P. W. 2 Patil makes it clear that when P.W. 1 purchased long bason from the accused, he did not purchase what was sold by the accused as an article of food, and that being so, if long bason is not food used for human consumption and is a substance used in the place of soap or soap-nut powder or as cattle feed, the adulteration is not an offence u/s 7 of the Act. It is on this short ground that I allow this revision petition and set aside the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence imposed on him. The fine if paid will be refunded.