# BANKATLAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

- **Citation:** [1975] 2 S.C.R. 470
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-10-17
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bankatlal-v-state-of-rajasthan-6326
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

470
BANKATLAL
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
October 17, 1974
[P. N. BHAGWATI, AND R. S. SARKARIA, Ji.)
Maintmance of Internal Stcurity Act 1971--S. 3(1) (a) (iii)-Scope of-"Supply
and Service" meaning of.
Whet her detaining authority bound to convey all the details of previous convic·
tions of the detenu.
B
Pursuant to two orders of detention under s. 3(1) (a) (iii) of the Maintenance
of Internal Security Act, 1971 the petitioner was detained on the ground that he
was indulging in adulteration of essential foodstuffs and was in possession of donkey
C
dung, sawdust, $'PSum, ICI colours and coloured plastic paper used and intended for
use in adulteration of foodstuffs; that the samples of foodstuffs sold by him, on
examination were found to contain highly adulterated material; that the recovery
of huge quantity of adulterated foodstuffs and adulterated material which is unhygenic and injurious to public health proved that by indulging in the business of
manufacture, sale and storage for sale of such egsential commodities he had been
acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenanc:c of supplies essential to the commu·
nity and that he could not be prevented from doing so by prosecution unde1· the
D
Prevention of 1'ood Adulteration Act. Before the confirmation of the order Clf
detention by the Government the petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition before
the Hi~h Court, which was dismissed. In a petition under article 32 of the Constf...
tution it was contended (i) that the grounds·of detention were non-existent; (ii) thnt
the grounds communicated to the detenu did not have a direct nexus with the main·
tcnance of supplies and servicea essential to the community; and (Iii) that In an
affidavit filed before the Hl11h Court the Distri1:t Magistrate relied upon an earlier
prosecution and conviction of the petitioner under the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, but failed to mention this ground in the order of detentioll, in
B
consequence of which the grounds communfoated were vague.
Dismissing the petition,
HELD : (I) It cannot be said that the grounds of detention were non-existent.
On the report of the public analyst the chilli powder and haldiwhole would be deemed
to be adulterate~ articles of food falling within the definition of cl. (c) and (f) respectively and Amchoor within the definition of cl. (b) and (c) of s. 2(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In the light of the information received
F'
by the detaining authority that !he petiti?ner had been systematically adulterating·
foodstuffs on a llU'ge scale, the discovery m bulk of extraneous matter stored in tht:
premises which could be used for adulteration could not be said to be irrelevant.
[477 H; 478 A-BJ
(2.)(a) Supplies in the context of s. 3(l)(a) (Iii) means supply of essential
commodities or foodstuffs in a wholesome form.
It does
not
mean
the
supply
Of
their
ad1J!terated
substitutes.
Engagement
in
the
process of adulteration of foodstuffs meant for sale is an activity highly prejudicial
G
to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, more so
when it is done ill an organised manner and on a large scale. {478 F·G]
Misrl Lal v. Th~ State A.I.R 1951 Pat. 134 F. B. over-ruled, and Harl Ram v,
State (1974) 25, RaJ. Law Weekly p. 26 approved.
(b) Food adulteration activity particularly of an organised kind is an activity
prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the
community which may justify an order of detention under s. 3(1) (a)(iii) of the Act
B.
One of the primary necessaries of life is food; one of the elementary obligation~
of a welfare state is to ensure food to its citizens. The concepts of "supplies" and
s"ervlces" interm/ngle in the discharge of that obligation by the State. Maintenance
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
BANKATLAL v. RAJASTHAN (Sarkoria, J.)
4 71
of sale of pure food stuffs to the public is be>th a "supply" and a"service". A person
who sells adulterated food to the people not only evin

## Text

470
BANKATLAL
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
October 17, 1974
[P. N. BHAGWATI, AND R. S. SARKARIA, Ji.)
Maintmance of Internal Stcurity Act 1971--S. 3(1) (a) (iii)-Scope of-"Supply
and Service" meaning of.
Whet her detaining authority bound to convey all the details of previous convic·
tions of the detenu.
B
Pursuant to two orders of detention under s. 3(1) (a) (iii) of the Maintenance
of Internal Security Act, 1971 the petitioner was detained on the ground that he
was indulging in adulteration of essential foodstuffs and was in possession of donkey
C
dung, sawdust, $'PSum, ICI colours and coloured plastic paper used and intended for
use in adulteration of foodstuffs; that the samples of foodstuffs sold by him, on
examination were found to contain highly adulterated material; that the recovery
of huge quantity of adulterated foodstuffs and adulterated material which is unhygenic and injurious to public health proved that by indulging in the business of
manufacture, sale and storage for sale of such egsential commodities he had been
acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenanc:c of supplies essential to the commu·
nity and that he could not be prevented from doing so by prosecution unde1· the
D
Prevention of 1'ood Adulteration Act. Before the confirmation of the order Clf
detention by the Government the petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition before
the Hi~h Court, which was dismissed. In a petition under article 32 of the Constf...
tution it was contended (i) that the grounds·of detention were non-existent; (ii) thnt
the grounds communicated to the detenu did not have a direct nexus with the main·
tcnance of supplies and servicea essential to the community; and (Iii) that In an
affidavit filed before the Hl11h Court the Distri1:t Magistrate relied upon an earlier
prosecution and conviction of the petitioner under the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, but failed to mention this ground in the order of detentioll, in
B
consequence of which the grounds communfoated were vague.
Dismissing the petition,
HELD : (I) It cannot be said that the grounds of detention were non-existent.
On the report of the public analyst the chilli powder and haldiwhole would be deemed
to be adulterate~ articles of food falling within the definition of cl. (c) and (f) respectively and Amchoor within the definition of cl. (b) and (c) of s. 2(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In the light of the information received
F'
by the detaining authority that !he petiti?ner had been systematically adulterating·
foodstuffs on a llU'ge scale, the discovery m bulk of extraneous matter stored in tht:
premises which could be used for adulteration could not be said to be irrelevant.
[477 H; 478 A-BJ
(2.)(a) Supplies in the context of s. 3(l)(a) (Iii) means supply of essential
commodities or foodstuffs in a wholesome form.
It does
not
mean
the
supply
Of
their
ad1J!terated
substitutes.
Engagement
in
the
process of adulteration of foodstuffs meant for sale is an activity highly prejudicial
G
to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, more so
when it is done ill an organised manner and on a large scale. {478 F·G]
Misrl Lal v. Th~ State A.I.R 1951 Pat. 134 F. B. over-ruled, and Harl Ram v,
State (1974) 25, RaJ. Law Weekly p. 26 approved.
(b) Food adulteration activity particularly of an organised kind is an activity
prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the
community which may justify an order of detention under s. 3(1) (a)(iii) of the Act
B.
One of the primary necessaries of life is food; one of the elementary obligation~
of a welfare state is to ensure food to its citizens. The concepts of "supplies" and
s"ervlces" interm/ngle in the discharge of that obligation by the State. Maintenance
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
BANKATLAL v. RAJASTHAN (Sarkoria, J.)
4 71
of sale of pure food stuffs to the public is be>th a "supply" and a"service". A person
who sells adulterated food to the people not only evinces a tendency to disrupt
tho even flow of essential supplies but also interrupts service to the community.
(479 G·H]
Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, Writ petition No. 1999 of 1973 decided
on 21-8-1974 referred to.
(c) One broad test for the exercise of the power which the detaining authority
may keep in view, particularly in a case of adulteration of foodstuffs is whether the
material before it about the activities. of the person sought to be detained in the
proximate past and present, is such as to enable it to make a reasonable prognosis
of the probability of that person to behave similarly in' the future. In th~ present
case on. the material before him the District Magistrate could reasonably be satisfied
that unless detained, the detenu would be likely to continue the food adulteration
activity in the future and it was, therefore, necessary to detain him. (481 B & DJ
(3) The mere fact that all the details cf his previous prosecutions and their
results or his conviction were not conveyed to the detenu did not contravene art.
22(S) of the Constitution and s. 8(1) of the Act. All these fact were within the know·
ledge of the detenu. There was sufficient indication In the first as well as the second
order of detention about the previous prosecution of the petitioner for food adulteration offences. What constitutes the substance of the grounds is the factum of the
raid and the discovery of adulterated chilli p~wder, Amchur, Haldi and a large quan·
tity of odd materials such as sawdust, donkey dung etc. which, in the opinion
of
the
detaining
authority,
were
suspected
adulterants.
Tho . prosonco
of
those
suspected
adulterants
In bulk, safely stored in
tins may not by Itself amount to an off once under tho penal law but It was a relevant
clrcwnstanco which could be taken Into account by tho detaining authority in reach·
Ins Its subjective satisfaction, (381 H; 482 B; 481 OJ
ORIGINAL JUR1so1c;r10N : Writ Petition No. 292 of 1974.
Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia
A. K. Sen, Badrl Das Sharma and S. K. Bagga, for the Petitioner~
L .. M. Singhvi, S. M. Jain and S. K. Jain, for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SARKARJA J, The petitioner challenges the validity of the order of
his detention made by the District Magistrate, Jodhpur under s. 3(l)(a)
(iii) of the Maintenance oflnternal Security Act, 1971 (for short the
Act) and prays for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus.
The order of detention was passed on March 18, 1974. In pursuance
thereof, the petitioner was taken into custody on March 19, 1974.
The detention order (for short, the first order) which was served on
the detenu at the time of his arrest on March 19, 1974. states :
" .... whereas, the said Shri Bankat Lal has been indulging
in rampant adulteration of essential foodstuff and supply there·
of for consumption by the community at large, operating a factory
and firm under the name and style of Laxmi Narain Moondra
situated in Makrana Mohalla, Jodhpur for such adulteration,
so much so that 170 odd bags of material which among other
things, includes 7 tins of sawdust, 15 bags of co!our (yellow and
Gherwa), 70 bags of chilli seed, black colour leaves, which look
like tea leaves, one bag of gypsum (khaddi) power and a tin of
472
SUPREME COURT llEPORTS
[1975] 2 S C.R.
animal dung, used and intended for use in adulteration of
foodstaffs, which are piosonous and injurious to. public health
were recovered from your godown. and one floor mill owned
and/or controlled by the said Shri Bankatlal;
3. And, whereas recovery from the godown and flour mill
mentioned in the preceding paragraph, also includes foodstuff
like Haldi, Mirchi, and Amchoor, which on chemical examination by the Public Analyst have been found to be adulterated
for which prosecution is contemplated against the said Shri
Bankatlal under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954;
4. And, further there is reasonable apprehension that
the said Shri Bankatlal will continue to indulge in adulteration
and sale of adulterated foodstuffs and there by act prejudicial
in the matter of maintenance of supplies essential to the community and frustrate the objective of supply of pure foodstuffs
to the community at large and there is no other way to prevent
him from acting in such prejudicial manner otherwise than by invoking the provisions of s. 3 (1) (a) (iii) of the Maintenance of
Internal Security Act.
5. And, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon
me bys. 3(2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, I
order the detention of Shri Bankatlal. .. "
The second order containing further particulars of the grounds of
detention was served on the petitioner cm March 20, 1974. It reads:
"
x
x
x
1. That on 11-3-1974 between 11 ·30 a.m. and 2 p.m. Dr.
(Miss) RB:i Kumari, District Chief Medical and Health Officer
Jodhpur together with ............ went to Sumer Market ..... .
where one Shri Hiranand son of Shri Lal Chand Sindhi, retailer
gave credible information that you are owning a business firm
named as 'Laxmi Narain Moondra a wholesale concern at
'Killikhana', Makrana Mohalla, Jodhpur and you are doing
wholesale business of adulteration of essential commodities
(foodstuffs) by adultering cheap unhygenic and injurious materials like colours, saw-dust., gypsum, Gharu and sand with
chilly-seeds, Haldi, Dhania, Amchur, tea-leaves and flour
and manufacture adulterated foodstuffs for sale to the general
public as pure varieties of such essential commodities. When
the party raided your above shop and four godowns situated in
the same premises and searched there between 11-3-1974 and
14-3-1974, the information given by Shri Hiranand was confirmed. You, together with your son were found present in your shop
and on the ~earch of your premises the checking party found under
your owner~hip and control huge quantities of adulterated foodstuffs ~s we:ll as the materials used by you for the purpose of adulteratmg essential commodities. A perusal of the recovery
memos of the articles· seized show that you possessed the stock
of following adulterated articles for manufacture, sale and
storage of foodstuffs for sale under your control.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
_ff
A
B
c
I
E
G
H
:SANKATLAL v. 11.AJASTHAN (Sarkaria, 1.)
47 3
(a) On ll-3-1974 in your main shop:-
(i) Eleven full bags and seven half-bags of adulterated chilli
po,wder, weighing 80 Kg. to 20 Kg. each.
(ii) One quintal bag of Haldi powder and two half bag&
ofthesame.
(iii) Ten to twenty kg. bags of Amchur powde1.
(iv) One tin of Dhaniya mixed with refuse.
(v) Two tins of Tumba oil.
Samples of each of the above foodstuffs were taken on 11-31974 by paying you the price of each sample in the presence of
Motbirs and forms IV and V were given to you; sealing the arti·
cles in your presence and copy of the recovery memo, was
also furnished to you.
(b) On 11-3-1974-;-Two rooms in the main shop containlnii
above foodstuffs were sealed in your presence containing:
1. Sixty bags of chilli powder.
2. Ten bags of Haldi.
3. Five bags of Amchur.
4. Five bags of unhusked Amchur.
(c) On 11-3-1974-The foollowing material used by you for
adulteration was recovered from your main shop.
(1) One bag of gypsum (Khaddi).
(2) Half bag of red colour used for mixing with chilli
powder.
(3) One package of I. C. I. colour containing green colour
suspected to be used for colouring adulterated Dhaniya.
(4) One packet containing 'saffron colour' used for mixing with Haldi powder.
(5) Red coloured plastic paper used for mixing purposes.
(6) Weights and weighing machines.
(d) On 12-3-1974 at 3 ·25-From your godol".n No. 1 and 2
rented to you by Shri Ramesh Chandra Mathur of the
same locality:
1. Sixty"two bags of chilli unhusked seeds, used
for
adulterating in chillies.
(e) On 13-3-1974 from above godown:
I. Thirty-four bags of chilli seeds.
2. Ten tins of biack used-ten-leaves-like material.
3. Ninety.nine tins of white powder.
4. Two bags of suspected soap stone powder.
474
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.c.R.
(f) On 13-3-1974 and 14·3-1974.
From the flour mill under your control in which food licence
No. 1666 Book No 10 dated 13·3·1973 in the name of your
wife Srimati Ramadevi was also recovered . ....:..
I. Eleven bags of husked seeds of chillies.
2. Two tins suspected to contain 'Donkey dung/
3. Eleven- tins of suspected material with sawdust.
4. One tin of yellow saw dust.
5. One tin of suspected mango seed powder.
6. Two tins of waste material of Dhaniya,
2. That the samples of foodstuffs sold by you to the Food
Inspector on 11-3-1974 were examined by the Public Analyst and
found on examination highly adulterated containing:
1. Chilli powder-total ash 8.12 % and ash insoluble in
H. C. C. 1 ·99 % contains silicious matter sand etc.
2. Haldi which contains 46 ·24 % heavily infested with insects in such material.
3. Amchur which contains 20% extraneous matter.
This further confirms your dealing in adulterated foodstuffs and its supply to the community.
3 That it was found from the statements of Hira Nand and
your landlord Ramesh Chandra Mathur wliose premises are rented by you for hoarding and manufacturing above foodstuffs
that you are engaged in such business for a long time now and
you put such adulterated commodities for sale to the innocent
customers as pure foodstuffs.
4. That in order to escape the consequences of Y,our actions,
you dalibera.tely failed to produce your firm's Registration
certificate issued under the 'Shops and Commercial Establishment Act'.
5. That you deliberately refused to open the flour mill esta.,,,
blished under your control in the name of your wife Srimati
Ramadevi and prevented the Health Officer from taking the
·search of the above mill in your prttsence. However, by invok·
ing the provisions of section 10 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954, the mill was unlocked in the presence of
motbirs and huge adulterated foodstuffs and material used for
adulterating foodstuffs were recovered.
6. That in your main shop, you fraudulently and deliberately
exhibited writings on cardboard styled 'foodstuffs not for human consumption' to avoid the checking. However, the reco·
very of the adulterated articles on the contrary prove that none
of these article$ are used other than as foodstuffs.
A
c
D
E
F
G
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
BANKATLAL v. RAJASTHAN (Sarkaria, J.)
4 7 5
7. That the recovery of huge quantity of above adulterated
foodstuffs and adulterated material which is unhygenic and
injurious to the public health goes to prove that by indulging in
the business of manufacture sale and storage for sale of such
essential commodities you have been acting prejudicial to the
maintenance of supplies essential to the community and have
been doing so for several years past and further, that you are
likely to continue to indulge in this nefarious activity injurious
to the public health and prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community and that you could not be prevented from doing so by mere prosecution under the Prevention
of Food Adulteration Act, which is being contemplated and
therefore, it was necessary to detain you by invoking the provisions of s. 3 (1) (a) (iii) of Maintenance of Internal Security
Act, 1971."
Now some other material facts may be set out. The State Government approved the order of detention on March 23, 1974. On or
about the 6th April, 1974 the petitioner moved the High Court of
Rajasthan under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ
of habeas corpus on the ground that his detention was illegal. The
High Court dismissed the writ application on May 6, 1974. The reference to the Advisory Board was made on April 10,1974 in compliance withs. 10.
The detenu made a representation, dated 16/17th
April 1974, which was despatched by the Superintendent, Central Jail,
Jodhpur, on April 17, 1974, and was received by the Government on
April 20, 1974. The Government then forwarded that representation
to the Advisory Board which considered it and heard the detenu in
person and reported to the Government that there was sufficient cause
for the detention. The State Government confirmed the detention
order on May 11, 1974.
Mr. Ashok Sen, learned Counsel for the petitioner has tried to
make out these points in his. arguments: (1) The grounds of detention
are non-existent; (2) The grounds communicated to the detenu are
not germane having a direct nexus with the maintenance of supplies
and services essential to the community; (3) The District Magistrate
had stated in his affidavit before the High Court that before passing
the order of detention, he had come to know that the petitioner had
been prosecuted and convicted earlier under the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act. This ground which must have weighed with the
District Magistrate in making the detention order, was not mentioned
in the grounds of detention communicated to the detenu w~o was, in
consequence, deprived of the opportunity of expfaining the circums·
.tances in which he was earlier convicted.' Failure to do so leaves the
ground communicated vague and the detention is on that account
illegal.
In elaboration of the first point, Mr. Sen submits that in the first
place, the donkey dung, saw-dust; gypsum, I. C. I. Colours, coloured
plastic paper, dhaniya waste, etc. which were· found in the .premises
were not adulterants. They were kept there for innocuous purposes.
476
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.c.R.
The donkey-dung was meant for being used as fuel; the sawdust was
there for preserving slabs of ice. Secondly, there was no evidence,
whatever, that these articles were being used to adulterate the spic1:s
or other foodstuffs for sale. It is stressed that none of the foodstuffs
taken from the premises was found adulterated or mixed with these
alleged adultt:rants viz., donkey-dung, sawdust I. C. I. colour etc. The
only extraneous matter in the sample of chilli powder detected by the
Public Analyst-proceeds the argument-was 1 ·99 % sand. Presence of
such a small percentage of sand in that sand-swept country may be
an act of GOd and not of the petitioner; and the same could be the
reason for the presence of stone-dust in the sample of Amchoor.
About
the presence of insects, 46 ·24 % in the
sample of
Haldi-whole it is contended that the same had also been brought about
by the process of nature and not by human hand. Strictly speaking,
maintains the Counsel, none of the foodstuffs in the premises had been
found adulterated; the three samples examined by the Public Analyst
were only sub-standard. It is urged that there was no nexus between
the alleged adulterants and the foodstuffs the samples of which were
found sub-standard. The detaining authority had therefore in taking
into account these alleged adulterant, 'erred and based the order of
detention on an irrelevant consideration. Since it cannot be predicated, argues the Counsel, to what extent the authority was influenced by
this irrelevant matter, the order stands vitiated.
Dr. Singh vi, learned Counsel for the State, submits that the reports
of the Public Analyst, far from excluding, strongly indicated the pos·
sibility of the samples of chilli powdc:r and Amchoor containing a
substantial percentage of animal dung, sawdust, gypsum and waste
matter. In particular, it is stressed that the dust and stones found in
Amchur were probably of gypsum. The Analyst, it is pointed out,
did not say t~at duststones and coriander seeds were the only components of what he compendiously describes as 20% "extraneous matter".
It is further submitted that the fibre and insoluble ash found in the
chilli powder might be due to the mixing of the adulterants ( othe:r
than I. C. I. colour) found in the premises. On these premises, it is
maintained, the seizure of the aforesaid. adulterants along with the
adulterated foodstuffs for sale, was highly relevant and germane to
the object of the de.tention viz., maintenance of supplies and services
essential to the community.
Taking the first points first, the presence of donkey-dung, saw-·
dust, gypsum, I. C. I. colours, refuse, coloured plastic, papers etc. stored
in tins, bags or other receptacles, in premises where spices and other
foodstuffs wer1: also lying stored, some of which were found adulterated
was by itself a suspicious circumstance. The petitioner held no license
to deal in I. C. I. colours or gypsum etc. At no stage, the petitioner
said that the animal dung had been stored by him for use as fuel and
we doubt very much that donkey dung is so used. Nor did he say
that the sawdust had been kept there for preserving ice or for other
domestic, use. With winter waning, the season must still be cool on
the 11th March. The question of using ice in that season did not arise.
Although sawdust, gypsum, I. C. I. colours etc. are articles of innocent
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
BANKATLAL v. RAJASTHAN (Sarkaria, /.)
471
use, yet in the circumstances of the case, they could furnis11 reason for
the detaining authority to suspect that they were kept there for use
as adulterants. This suspicion was strengthened by the fact that the
· samples of chilli powder, Amchoor and Haldi-whole were found by the
Public Analyst to be highly adulterated containing 1 · 45 % extraneous
matter and 46 · 24 % insects. True, that the Analyst did not find any
artificial colouring matter in these samples. But at the same time he
did not positively exclude the possibility of sawdust, donkey-dung,
gypsum and refuse having been used in adulterating the samples. He
detected in Amchoor, 20·0% extraneous maiter including "dust-stones
and other edible seeds namely coriander etc." apart from insects.
Gypsum ·is rock chalk. Chemically, it is hydrous calcium salphate.
The "dust stones" could be calcium sulphate. Then, the use of "etc."
by the Analyst shows that this extraneous matter could include other
things also. The result of the analysis of chilli powder was as under:
Moisture content
•
6 ·82 %
Total Ash·
•
8'12%
Alih insoluble in Ire!
1 ·99 %
Crude fibre
28'16 %
Itis evident that there was an excess of insoluble ash (1·99 %) which
according to the particulars conveyed to the
detenu, was siliclous
matter, sand etc. The possibility of gypsum being a component of this
insoluble ash had not been ruied out.
There could be no doubt that on the basis of the reports of thepublic Analyst, the chilli powder, Amchoor and Haldi~whole taken. .
from the premises of the petitioner were prima f acie adulterated
articles.
·
Section 2(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
provides:
"an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated:
(b) if the article contains any other substance which affects, or
if the article is so processed as to affect, injuriously the nature
substance or quality thereof;
(c) if arty ·inferior or cheaper substance has been substituted
wholly or in part for the article so as to affect injuriously
the nature, substance or· quality thereof; and
(f) if the article consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid,
disgusting, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or
vegetable substance or is insect-infested or is otherwise
unfit for human Consumption ............ "
On the report of the Public Analyst the chilli powder and Haldiwhole would be deemed to be 'adulterated articles of food' faHing
.. within the above quoted clauses (c) and (f) respectively, while. Amchoor
R
would be covered both by clauses (b) and (c).
Two things. emerge clear from the above discussion. First, that
the chilli powder, Amchoor and Haldi-whole· of whiCh samples were
478
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.c.R.
taken were adulterated articles of food. Second, in the light of the
information received by the detaining authority that the petitioner had
been systematically adulterating food-stuffs on a large-scale, the discovery in bulk of extraneous matter stored in the premises, which could
be used for adulteration, could not be said to be irrelevant. By no
stretch of'reasQning, therefore, could it be said that the grounds of
detention were non-existent.
This takes us- to the second point. It raises the question: Is food
adulteration activity an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services to the community? For reasons that follow, the
.answer to this question, in our opinion must be in the affirmative.
Section 3(1) of the Act runs thus:
"The Central Government or the State Government may,
(a) if satisfied with respect to any person (including a foreigner)
that with a view to preventing him from acting.in any manner
prejudicial to
(i)
(ii)
(iii) the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the
community,
it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person
be detained."
A
B
c
D
Sub-section (2) specially empowers the District Magistrate,
E
Additional District Magistrate and the Commissioner of Police to
:make an order on the basis of their subjective satisfaction.
It is not disputed that spices such a.s chilli powder, Amchoor,
Haldi etc. are 'foodstuffs' and as such are commodities essential to
1he life of the community. 'Supplies' in the context of s. 3(1) (a) (iii)
means the supply of essential commodities or foodstuffs in a wholesome
F
form. It does not mean thd supply of their adulterated substitute.
There can be no doubt
therefore, that engagement in the process of
adulteration of foodstuffs meant for sale, is an activity highly prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the
-community, morn so when it is done in an organised manner and on
a large scale.
In Misri Lal v. The State (1), a Full Bench of the Patna High Court,
G
speaking through Imam J. (as he then was) took a different view in
:these terms:
"I do not think that the W\lrds 'maintenance of supplies and
services essential to the community could reasonably carry the
meaning that any one who adulterated foodstuffs would be
acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies or
H
the continuity of supplies. It is true that adulterated foodstuff
1. A.I.R. 1951 Pat. 134 F.B.
A
B
c
D
E
F
t
G
H
BANKATLAL v. RAJASTHAN (Sarkaria, /,)
4 7 9
supplied to the community may be harmful to its health, but supplying such adulterated foodstuff would not be prejudicial to the
maintenance of supplies. The Act does not speak of profiteering,
much less profiteering at the expense of the health of the community.
The above, we think, is too narrow a view. If it was intended.to lay
it down as an absolute proposition oflaw, that in no circumstances food
adultertion activity can be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies
and services essential to the community, we would, with respect, disapprove it as not enunciating a correct principle. The view in Misri Lal's.
case (supra) was dissented from by a Bench of the Rajasthan High
Court in Hari Ram v. State. (1) Commenting on the decision of Misrf
/al' s case, that Court said:
"In our opinion the crucial words of the statute are-
"acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies". The burden is not on maintenance as it merely imports. continuity. The essence of the matter is that the act
should not prejudicial to the. supply. A person is said to
act to the detriment or acts injuriously. The next question is
supply of what? We have already said the commodity which is
essential to the community. Ata (flour) is certainly one of such
articles and probaP!y the most basic for keeping the soul and
body together. If ata is adulterated with some powder, what
is supplied is not a commodity essential to the community but
its counterfeit.
The qbject of the Security Act is to deal effectively with the threats to the organized life and to the security of
India .... "
"In essence we regret to have to repeat that supply means the
supply of.essential commodity and not its counterfeit and those
who are engaged in the process of counterfeiting an essential
commodity are certainly acting prejudicially to the maintenance
of Supply of the essential commodity. In our opinion, therefore,
adulterating an essential commodity is acting prejudicially fo
the maintenance of its supply and the provisions of sec. 3(1)
(a) (iii) are clearly attracted."
This seems to be the correct line of approach, but it does not stop.
at maintenance of "supplies" only. It extends further to "services·~.
also. One of the primary necessaries of life is food; one of the e!ez:
mentary obligations of a welff\re state is to ensure food to its citizens.
The concepts of "supplies" and "services" intermingle in the discharge
of that obligation by the State. Maintenance of sale of pure foodstuffs
to the public, therefore, is both a "supply" and a "service". A person
who sells adulterated food to the people not only evinces a tendency
to disrupt the even flow of essential supplies but also interrupts service
. to ~he community. Recently in Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar, a.
decision to which one of us was a party-the connotation, scope and
inter-relationship of the terms "supplies" and "services" in s. 3 (l}
(1) (1974) 25 Raj. Law Weekly p. 26.
480
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[l 97 5] 2 s.c.JR.
(a) (iii) of the Act came up for examination in the context of blackA
m'lrketing in foodgrains. What was said then may usefully be extracted now:
" "Light and power" thus are commodities; so also food and
water. Yet who will deny that light is a service or drinking
water, for that m'l.tter? The touchstone of social control is that it
must be a thing essential for the existence of the community;
B
when crystalised it is supplies when sublimated it is services.
It depends in most cases on the angle from which you view and
lens you use. Food is supplies, so shipping and wagons
kerosene and gasoline. And yet they are services. At a feeding
c;:ntre for starving children you supply food, serve gruel."
F.>od adulteration activity, therefore, particularly of an organized
C
kind, as in the present case, is au activity prejudicial to the maintenan<:e
of supplies and services essential to the life of the community which
m1y j11~tify an order of preventive dentention under s. 3(1) (a)(iii).
Wa will, h)w;:var, sound a note of c1ution. The Act gives ~lt·
trurdin1ry pJw;:r of high potency to the Executive. Exercised with
d~: discretbn and cire, it m1y prove to b;: an effective weapon for
fiihting social evils, enc)mimsed by the statute, that are eating
into the vit'l.ls of the N 1tion and pJse a c1priciously, the power ma;Y
t11rn into an ~ngine of oppression, pJsing a threat to the democratic
way of life, itself. The need for utm')st good faith and caution in the
ex'!rcise of this pJwer, therefore, cannot be over-emphasised.
B;it evary p;:tty, or ordinary· act of adulteration of foodstuffs will
not justify preventive action under the Act.
It is only adulteration
cirried on h'lbitually or in a big way th9.t throws out of gear the even
tem'J of life. Only big whales plunging to prey unleash tidal wavc:s
which diiturb the even keel of communal life, the little fry acting in a
sm'l.!l way in their little world, matter little. They hardly cause a ripple
D
E
to the even flow of supplies and services. In simple ordinary cases of
adulteration, therefore, where there are no circumstances pre-indicative
of the offender's propensity to indulge in adulteration in the future, it · Jl
m9.y not be proper to exercise the power of preventive detention.
Where the m9.laise is outgrown and m'!.lignant .the preventive "radiotherapy" sanctioned by the Act can properly be applied.
It is here
th1t the distinction batween the concepts of preventive detention and
punitive incarceration C)mes in for importance. Speaking for
this Court in Haradhan Sahav.Stateof'West Bengaf(l) the learned
Chief Justice brought out this distinction thus:
"The i:pwer of preventive detention is qualitatively different
from punitive detention. The power of preventive detention
is a precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation.
It m1y or m1y not relate to an offence. It is not a parallel
proceeding. It does not overlap with prosecution even if it relics
on certain facts for which prosecution may be launched or may
have been launched. An order of preventive detention may be
(1) Writ Petition No.1999 of 1973 decided on 21-8-1974,
,,
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
.BANKATLAL v. RAJA:STHAN (Sarkariμ,, J.)
4 81
made with or without prosecution and in anticipation or afte1
discharge or even acquittal. The pendency of prosecution is no
bar to an order of preventive detention. An order of preventive detention is also not a bar to prosecution."
One broad test therefore, for the exercise of the power which the
detaining authority may usefully keep in view, particularly in a case
of adulteration of foodstuffs, is : "Whether the material before it
about the; activities of the person sought to be detained, in the proximate past and present, is such as to enable it to Il).ake a reasonable prognosis of the probability of that person to behave similarly in the future.
The nature and process of the activity, its magnitude, its impact on the
public generally and the incidence of the evil in the locality or in the
State generally, are some of the relevant factors which the authority
may usefully take into consideration in arriving at its satisfaction.
Here it is clear from the facts and circumstances stated above that
on the material before him
the
District Magistrate
could
reasonably
be
satisfied
that,
unless
detained, the detenu
would be likely to continue the food adulteration activity in the future
and it was therefore necessary to detain him.
Accordingly this contention also must be rejected.
In regard to the third point, viz., non-communication of particular
of the previous conviction of the petitioner, it may be observed that the
District Magistrate, Shri Zutshi, who made the detention order, averred in the counter-affidavit which he had filed before the High Court,
that at the time of making the impugned order, he knew that the petitioner had been previously prosecuted for offences punishable under
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but the judgment of the case
in which he was prosecuted, was not available. Thus the detaining
authority did not know whether the previous prosecution of the petitioner had resulted in his conviction. That was why he did not mention
the fact of this conviction, as di~tinguished from prosecution, in the
particulars of the grounds of detention communicated to the detenu.
It is note worthy that the grounds of detention were incorporated by
the detaining authority in the order of detention itself, which has been
quoted in extenso earlier }n this judgment. What constitutes the substance of 'the grounds is the factum of the raid and the discovery of
adulterated . chilli powder, Amchur and Haldi and a large quantity
of odd materials such as sawdust, donkey-dung etc. which in the
opinion of the detaining authority-were-and we think for good reasons
-suspected adulterants. The presence of these suspected adulterants
in bulk, safely storea in tins, may not by itself amount to an offence
under the penal law but it was a relevant circumstance which could be ·
taken into account by the detaining authority in reaching its subjective
satisfaction.
The mere fact, therefore, that all the details of his previous prosecutions. and their results or his conviction were not conveyed to the
detenu did hot contravene .Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution and s. 8(1).
of the Act. All these facts were within the knowledge of the detenu.
In any case, he could, if he so desired, ask for these particulars. It
482
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975) 3 s.c.~ ..
has been admitted before us, as was done before the High Court, that
the petitioner was only once convicted for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. That conviction, it is submitted by
Mr. Sen, was based on his confession and the petitioner had mad~ that
confession on the advice of his Counsel in order to escape the harass ..
ment of a protracted trial.
As already noticed, there was sufficient indication in the first as well
as the second order of detention about the previous prosecution of the:
petitioner for a food adulteration offence. He was heard in person
by the Ad\ isory Board and had every opportunity "to explain the circumstances in which he was previously prosecuted and convicted.
Thus the objection with regard to the non-communication of these
details of previous prosecution and conviction is merely an after·
thought.
No other point was raised before us.
In the result the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged.
P. B. R.
Petition dismissed.
A
B
c
D