# JAGDISH PRASAD ALIAS JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

- **Citation:** [1972] 2 S.C.R. 845
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-12-13
- **Bench:** P. Jaganmohan Reddy, I. D. Dua
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jagdish-prasad-alias-jagdish-prasad-gupta-v-state-of-west-bengal-5575
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Prevention of Food
A'dulteration Rules, 1955-Appendix B A 17.06-Public Analyst-Failure
to report on al/ tests-Does not make report ineffective-Section 16(i)-
Sentience-Circustances justi/Ying reduction-Sanction-Bengal Municipal
Act, 1932.
The appellant, manager of an Oil Mill,
was convicted under
s. 7(i) /16(i) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954,
and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment.
His appeal to the
Sessions Judge was without success and a revision to the High Court, was
also dismissed.
In apinal to this Court it was contended that (i) the
sanction for prosecution did not show (a) that the Chairman of the Municipality had applied his mind before giving the sanction, (b) that it was
invalid since it was not granted by the local authority, namely, the municipality and ( c) that since the resolution of the Municipality had authorised
the Chairman to give the sanction, the new Chairman could not avail himself of that authorisation and, therefore, the trial was vitiated for want of
valid and legal sanction; (ii) the report of the Public Analyst was not a
proper report in law and was bad and incomplete for failure to carry out
all the tests required under A. 17.06 of Appendix- B to the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, and also for failure to disclose the data
in the report; and (iv) the sentence awarded was harsh for a first offender.
Reducing the sentence and dismissing the appeal,
HELD: (i) Reading ss. 20 and 51 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932,
the Chairman of a municipality duly authorised by the municipality can
accord sanction for prosecution of offences under the Act. The resolution
of the Municipality authorising the Chairman to perform all the functions
and exercise the powers of the local authority within fhe meaning of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is not to grant power to any
particular Chairman eo noniinee, but, is a general power exercisable by
any Chairman, for the time being, of the municipality. The High Court
has rightly pointed out that under s. 15 (2) of the Bengal Municipality Act
the Municipality is a body corporate and it has perpetual succession and,
as such, any authorisation granted by it is not limited to the Chairman
then in office but,will continue unless rescinded. [848 D; G·H]
(ii) It is. true that the Public Analyst in his report has only indicated
the result of the three tests out of which two tests were as indicated in
A 17.06, while, only one, namely, the saponification test, was said to have
exceeded the maximum on the strength of which the Public Analyst
reported that the sample was adulterated. Omission to report on the other
four tests does pot make the report ineffective or inconclusive.
Even
assuming that the other four tests are normal, if the saponification test
alone did not conform to the standards indicated in A 17.06 of Appendix B
to the Rules, the sample cannot be said to have come up to the standard ·
·and, therefore, it is adulterated. It is in exercise of the powers conferred
by s. 23(i) (b) that rule 5 was made authorising standards of quality of
846
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 2 s.c.R.
the various articles of food specified in Appendix B to the Rules.
Standards having been . fixed, any person who deals in artic)es of food which
do not conform to them contravenes the provisions of the Act and is
liable to punishment thereunder. [849 A-C; 850 E]
Andhra Pradesh Grain and Seed Merchants Association and o~hers v.
Union of India & Anr., A.I.R. [1971) S.C. 2346, referred to.
If the report of the Public Analyst was not satisfactory it was open
to the appellant to make an application for sending the sample which was
in his possession to the Director. If he had made such an application and
sent the sample under s. 13(2) the certificate granted by the Director of
the Central Food Laboratory would have superseded the report. given by
the Public Analyst.
This has not been done.
In the c

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
845
JAGDISH PRASAD ALIAS JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
December 13, 1971
(P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.]
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Prevention of Food
A'dulteration Rules, 1955-Appendix B A 17.06-Public Analyst-Failure
to report on al/ tests-Does not make report ineffective-Section 16(i)-
Sentience-Circustances justi/Ying reduction-Sanction-Bengal Municipal
Act, 1932.
The appellant, manager of an Oil Mill,
was convicted under
s. 7(i) /16(i) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954,
and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment.
His appeal to the
Sessions Judge was without success and a revision to the High Court, was
also dismissed.
In apinal to this Court it was contended that (i) the
sanction for prosecution did not show (a) that the Chairman of the Municipality had applied his mind before giving the sanction, (b) that it was
invalid since it was not granted by the local authority, namely, the municipality and ( c) that since the resolution of the Municipality had authorised
the Chairman to give the sanction, the new Chairman could not avail himself of that authorisation and, therefore, the trial was vitiated for want of
valid and legal sanction; (ii) the report of the Public Analyst was not a
proper report in law and was bad and incomplete for failure to carry out
all the tests required under A. 17.06 of Appendix- B to the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, and also for failure to disclose the data
in the report; and (iv) the sentence awarded was harsh for a first offender.
Reducing the sentence and dismissing the appeal,
HELD: (i) Reading ss. 20 and 51 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932,
the Chairman of a municipality duly authorised by the municipality can
accord sanction for prosecution of offences under the Act. The resolution
of the Municipality authorising the Chairman to perform all the functions
and exercise the powers of the local authority within fhe meaning of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is not to grant power to any
particular Chairman eo noniinee, but, is a general power exercisable by
any Chairman, for the time being, of the municipality. The High Court
has rightly pointed out that under s. 15 (2) of the Bengal Municipality Act
the Municipality is a body corporate and it has perpetual succession and,
as such, any authorisation granted by it is not limited to the Chairman
then in office but,will continue unless rescinded. [848 D; G·H]
(ii) It is. true that the Public Analyst in his report has only indicated
the result of the three tests out of which two tests were as indicated in
A 17.06, while, only one, namely, the saponification test, was said to have
exceeded the maximum on the strength of which the Public Analyst
reported that the sample was adulterated. Omission to report on the other
four tests does pot make the report ineffective or inconclusive.
Even
assuming that the other four tests are normal, if the saponification test
alone did not conform to the standards indicated in A 17.06 of Appendix B
to the Rules, the sample cannot be said to have come up to the standard ·
·and, therefore, it is adulterated. It is in exercise of the powers conferred
by s. 23(i) (b) that rule 5 was made authorising standards of quality of
846
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 2 s.c.R.
the various articles of food specified in Appendix B to the Rules.
Standards having been . fixed, any person who deals in artic)es of food which
do not conform to them contravenes the provisions of the Act and is
liable to punishment thereunder. [849 A-C; 850 E]
Andhra Pradesh Grain and Seed Merchants Association and o~hers v.
Union of India & Anr., A.I.R. [1971) S.C. 2346, referred to.
If the report of the Public Analyst was not satisfactory it was open
to the appellant to make an application for sending the sample which was
in his possession to the Director. If he had made such an application and
sent the sample under s. 13(2) the certificate granted by the Director of
the Central Food Laboratory would have superseded the report. given by
the Public Analyst.
This has not been done.
In the circumstances he
has been properly convicted. [850 HJ
(iv) The reason for the legislature to make exoeption to the minimum
of sLx months rigorous imprisonment prescribed under s. 16(1) is not that
the offences specified are not considered to be serious, but the gravity of
the offences, having regard to its nature can be less if there are any
special or adequate reasons.
In the μresent case having regard to the
fact that the appellant has been on bail since 1964 for a period of nearly
seven years, and also because not only the oil sample satisfied all the tests
except one but the main person concerned in the manufacture of the oil
has been acquitted, interests of justice would be served if the sentence of
one year is reduced to two months rigorous imprisomnent and the appellant
;, further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. [851 F, HJ
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JumsmcTION: Criminal Appeal No.
50 of 1969.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 24,
1968 of the Calcutta High Court in Crh:hinal Revisions No. 235
of 1966.
Nur-ur-din Ahmed, S. C. Agarwal and lndiraj Jaisingh, for
the appellant.
S. P. Mitra and G. S. Chatterjee for Sukumar Basu for the
respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Jaganmoban Reddy, J. This appeal is by certificate under Art.
134(1 )( c) of the Constitution. The appellant is the Manager of
Sree Krishna Oil Mills, Midnapore, the proprietor of which was
one Srilal Bajoria. Both these persons were tried jointly for an
offence under s. 7(1)/16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adul-
·teration Act, 1954-hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The pro-·
prietor Srilal Bajoria was acquitted but the appellant was sentenc··
ed to one year rigorous ill).prisonment. The offence in respect olf
which the appellant was charged, was that he being the Manager
of the Oil Mills for manufacturing mustard oil was responsible for
the adulteration. On July 10, 1964, at about 11 A.M. the appel'
!ant was going in a truck carrying 100 tins of mustard oil and was
stopped by the Food Inspector, Kharagpore Municipality. On being
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
JAGD!SH PRASAD v. WEST BENGAL (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) 847
questioned by the Food Inspector the appellant informed him that
the oil which he was carrying was manufactured at Sree Krishna
Oil Mills, Midnapore. As the Food Inspector suspected that this
oil may have been adulterated, he took three samples according to
the provisions of the Act. He sent one sample to the Public
Analyst-one he kept with himself and the third he gave to the
appellant. The Public Analyst on examining the sample sent to
.him reported on August 5, 1964, that saponification value of the
oil was 181.6, l9dine value 107.2 and B. R. reading at 40°C was
60.1 and was of the opinion that the sample of mustard oil was
adulterated-vide Ext. 5. After obtaining the sanction for prosecution from the Chairman of the Municipality. t;he appellant was
prosecuted before the Magistrate, 1st Class, Midnapore.
He
pleaded not guilty but on the evidence and the report of the Public
Analyst he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. An appeal
to the Sessions Judge was without success. Thereafter the appellant filed a revision before the fligh Court and that was also
dismissed.
Before us the learned counsel for the appellant has urged
sin1ilar points as were urged before the High Court, namely, (i)
that the trial was vitiated for want of valid and legal sanction; (ii)
that the report of the Public Analyst was not a proper report in
law and cannot form the basis of legal conviction; and (iii) that
the Public Analyst's report was bad and incomplete for failure to
carry out all the tests required under A. 17.06 of Appendix B to
the Prevention of Food Adulteration: Rules, 1955, and also for
failure to disclose the data in the report.
It is contend~ on behalf of the appellant that the sanction to
prosecute the appellant was given by the Chairman of Kharagpore
Municipality-Shri K. C. Chaki-on August 19, 1964.
This
sanction did not show (a) tha~ the Chairman had applied his mind
before giving the sanction; (b) that it was valid as it was not granted by the Local Authority, namely, the Municipality; and (c) that
since the resolution of the Municipality had authorised the Chairman to give the sanction, the new Chairman. cannot avail himself
of that authorisation as by that time there were fresh elections and
a new Chairman was elected. Accordingly it is submitted that the
sanction given by Mr. Chaki was not a proper sanction.
It appears to us that the challenge to the validity of the sanction is misconceived. As pointed out by the High Court s. 51
of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, enumerates the powers' of the
Chairman as under :
"Save as hereinafter provided, the Chairman shall
for the transaction of the business connected with this
Act or for the purpose of making any order authorised
848
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 2 S.C.R.
thereby, exercise all the powers vested by this Act i,n the
Commissioners and whereby any other law power is
vested in the Commissioners for any purpose, the Chairman may transact any business or make any order authorised by that law in the exercise of that power, unless it
is otherwise expressly provided in that law."
Section 20 of the Act provides for sanction of the Local Authority
for prosecutions under the Act which includes a Municipality.
Reading these two provisions together the Chairman of a Municipality duly authorised by the Municipality can accord sanction for
prosecution of offences under the Act. In compliance with the
aforesaid power under s. 51 of the Bengal Municipal Act, the
Mumcip'!lity by resolution dated .July 28, 1960 authorised the
Chairman "to perform all the functions and exercise the powers
of the Local Authority ·within the meaning of the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act. 1954." (Exe. 7). This power, it may be
noticed, is not granted to any particular Chairman Eo nominee, but
is a general power exercisable by any ·Chairman for the time being
of the Municipali\'y. It is true that a fresh election of the Chairman was held after the resolution of the Municipality but that does
not deprive the new Chairman of the power to grant sanction
under thati resolution.
-
The appellant in Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 450
& 515 of 1970 seeks permission to allow him to adduce additional
evidence to show that there was another resolution by the Kharagpore Municipality dated Augus~ 18, 1965, which had given a fresh
authorisation to the Chairman to grant sanctions for prosecution
under the Act which would show that the previous authorisation
was not really valid when sanction was given to prosecute the
appellant. Apart frolb the fact that no case has been made out to
adduce any fresh evidence, the resolution itself has been passed
after the sanction for the prosecution was given and even that resolution as can be noticed is in similar terms to the earlier resolution
passed by the Municipality. This subsequent resolution does not
in any way indicate that the previous power could not be availed
of by the Chairman who in fact had granted the sanction. At the
most it may have been passed by way of abundant caution, having
regard to the contentions raised during the trial of the appellant.
The High Court has pointed out, and we think rightly, that under
s. 15(2) of' the Beng<!l Municipal Act, the Municipality is a body
corporate and it has· perpetual succession, if so any authorisation
granted by it is not lill_lited to the Chairman t'hen in office, but will
continue unless otherwise rescinded.
Nextly it has been strenuously urged before us on behalf of
the appellant that the report of the Public Analyst is not a complete report in that out of the seven tests that he had to make under
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ff
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
JAGDISH PRASAD v. WEST BENGAL (iaganmohan Reddy, J.) 849
A 17 .06 of Appendix B to the Rules he had only made three tests
and secondly the report does not give the basis on which the Public
Analyst came to the conclusion tihat the sample of the mustard
oil was adulterated. It is true that the Public Analyst in his report has only indicated the result of the three tests out of which
two tests were as indicated in A 17.06 while only one, namely, the
saponification test was said to have exceeded the maximum on the
strength of which the Public Analyst reported that the ~ample was
adulterated. Omission to report on the other four tests does not,
in our view, make the report ineffective or the report inconclusive.
Even assuming that the .. other four tests are normal, if the saponification test alone did not conform to the standards indicated in
A 17 .06 of Appendix B to the Rules the sample cannot be said
to have come up to the standard and, therefore, it is adulterated.
An attempt was made to refer us to certain technical books
and the decisions in Jagadish Chandra Jain v. Corporation of Calcutta(') Messrs. Netai Chandra and Surendra Nath Dey v. Corporation of Calcutta,(") and In re. Perumal & Co.( 3 ) for the proposition that the standard prescribed by A 17 .06 in Appendix B
to the Rules is not conclusive because in some places mustard can
yield a higher reading. We cannot allow any fresh evidence to be
used, nor do we think that the decisions referred to, even if they
justify that contention, can alter or vary the standard fixed in
exercise of the powers conferred by the Act in Appendix B to the
Rules.
SectiM 3 of the Act authorises the Centra,l Government to
constitute a Committee called th~ Central Committee for Food
Standards to advise the Central Government and the State Governments on matters arising out of the administration of the Act and
to carry out the other functions assigned to it under the Act.
Under s. 23 ( 1) (b) of the Act the Central Government may, after
consultation with the Committee and subject to the condition of
previous publication, make rules "defining
the
standards
of
quality for, and fixing ·the limits of variability permissible in
respect of, any article of food." It is in exercise of this power that
r. 5 was made authorising standards of quality of the various
articles of food specified in Appendix B to the· Rules.
In view
of this provision any article of food which does not conform to the
standards specifiN in Appendix B to the Rules which under s. 2
( 1) of the Act is said to be adulterated because "the quality or
purity of the article falls below the ;_1rescribed standard or its
constituents are present in quantities which are in eXcess of the
prescribed limits of variability."
The contention that the standards cannot be conformed to by
an ordinary vendor who is not versed in the technicalities is also
(1) 57 C.W.N. 839.
(2) A.I.R. 1967 Cal. 65.
(3) A.1.R. 1943 Mad. 47.
850
SUfREME COURT REPORTS
(1972] 2 S.C.R.
not of significance.
In this regard it was pointed out by Shah, J.,
as he then was, speaking for this Court in Andhra Pradesh Grain
and Seed Merchants Association and others v. Union of India &
Anr.(') :
"The various items in the Schedule setting out
standards of quality use
technical expressions with
which an ordinary retail dealer may not be familiar, and
also set out percentages of components which the dealer
\\ith ihe means at his command cannot verify. But by
s. 3, the Central Government has to set up the Central
Committee for Food Standards to advise the Central and
the State Governments on matters arising out of ,the
adminis'tration of the Act ...... ~ ........... Under
s. 23 (1) (b) the Central Government makes rules prescribing the standards of quality and the limits of variability permissible in any article of food. The rules are
made after consultation with the Committee for Food
Standards. The standards set out in the Appendix to the
Rules are prescribed a.fter consultation \\1th the Committee for Standards."
It appears to us therefore that standards having been fixed as
aforesaid any person wlio deals in articles of food which do not
conform to them contravenes the privisions of the Act and is
liable to punishment thereunder.
It was again urged that the Public Analyst had not given the
basis for his conclusion that the saponification test did not conform to the standards specified in A 17.06 of Appendix B to the
Rules which contention is also not tenable. Under s. 13 ( 5) of the
Act any document purporting to be a report signed by a Public
Analyst, unless it has been superseded under sub-s. ( 3), or any
document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director
of the Central Food Laboratory, may be used as. evidence of the
facts stated therein in any proceeding under the Act or under
ss. 272 to 276 of the Indian Penal Code. Under. the proviso to
that sub-section any document purporting to be a certificate signed
by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory shall be final and
conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. If the repori of the
Public Analyst was not satisfactory, it was open to the appellant
to have made an application for the sample which was in his
possession to be sent to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for examination. If he _had made such an application and
sent the sample under s. 13 (2) the certificate granted by the
(1) A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2346.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
JAGDISH PRASAD v. WEST BENGAL (Jaga11moha11 Reddy, J.) 851
Director of the Central Food Laboratory would have superseded
the report given by the Public Analyst.
This he has not done.
In the circumstances he has been properly convicted.
Lastly it has to be considered whether the sentence awarded
in the circumstance,.s requires any modifi~ation. It was urged that
the prosecution of the appellant was pnor to the amendment of
sub-s. ( 1) of s. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
with effect from March 1, 1965, under which the sentence has to
be a minimum of six inonths rigorous imprisonment, l:!Ut there is
no such injunction under the unamended section and
yet the
maximum sentence has been awarded to the appellant which is
harsh for a first offender.
Offences under the Act being antisocial crimes affecting the health and well-being of our people, the
Legislature having regard to the trend of courts to impose in
·most cases only fines or where a sentence of imprisonment was
pass<;<! a light sentence was awarded even in cases where a severe
sentence was called for, .a more drastic step was taken by it in
prescribling a minimum sentence and a minimum fine to be imposed
even for a first offence. An exception was however made in cases
falling ·under sub-cl. (i) of cl. (a) ofs. 16(1) and in respect of
an article of food which was considered to be adulterated under
s. 2 cl. (i)Ji) or misbranded under s. 2 cl. (ix) or for an offence
under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of s. 16(1), in which case
the Court is given the discretion, for any adequate and special
reasons to be mentioned, to award a lesser sentence than six
months or impose a fine lesser than one thousand rupees or of
both lesser than the minimum prescribed. If for the offence of
which the appellant is convicted even under the amended section
a lesser sentence can be awarded, if there were adequate and
special reasons, it would be much more so under the unamended
section.
The reasons for the Legislature to make the exception
is not that the offences specified are not considered to be serious,
but the gravity of the offence having regard to its nature can be
less if there are any special or adequate reasons.
In our view though offences for adulteration of food must be
severely dealt with, no doubt depending on the facts of each case
which cannot be considered as precedents in other cases, in this
case having regard to the fact that the appellant has been on bail
since 1964 for a period of nearly seven years, and also because
not only ~e mustard oil sample satisfied all the tests except one
but the mam person concerned in the manufacture of the said oil
has been acquitted, interests of justice would be served if the
sentence of one year is reduced to two months rigorous imprisonment and the appellant is further directed to pay a
fine
of
852
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 2 S.C.R.
Rs. 1,000/- failing which to be directed to undergo a further term
of rigorous imprisonment for one month.
We accordingly so
direct.
Subject to this modification, the appeal and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 450 and 515 of 1970 are dismissed.
K.B.N.
Appeal and petitions dismissed.
A
B
'