# _. , .l. :341 SAMBHU DAYAL v. STATE OF U.P. Ifovembu 21, 197g - **Citation:** [1979] 2 S.C.R. 341 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1979 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 1972 - **Bench:** P. S. Kailasam, A. D. KOSftAL - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/l-341-sambhu-dayal-v-state-of-u-p-ifovembu-21-197g-7519 - **Pages:** 7 ## Headnote Prei:t'ntion of ·Food Adulteration Act, 1950 Sections 8 and ' as amended by the Amcndinj.' A ct 49 of 1964---{,'onstruction of-Presumption of adulteration of milk in respect of samples analysed after a fixed period. The appelhu1t was convicted under section 8 read with !ection 16 of the A Pre•1ention of Food Adulteration Act by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalaun C and sentenced to six months rigoroui imprisonment, the minimum sentence awardable under the P.0.F.A. 1950. In appeal the Ses!iona Court reversed it, but in further appeal by the State against his acquitti and reversal of the trial court decision, the High Court of Allahabad set aaide the Session's orders and restored that of the trial court. J)ismissin§: the appeal by special leave the Cou1i. D HELD : l. Sectinns 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration ,\ct, 1950 as amended by sectio~ 5 of the Amending Act 49 of 1964 cannot be read as repealing the old sections and empowering the Central Government or the State Government to appoint the Public Analyst or the Food Inspector after the coming into force of the amendini' Act, implying that any prior appointment ()f a Public Analyst or Food Inspector itood repc.i.led. i345A] E 2. Whether the notifications of the Government in 196~ appointing the Public Analyst and the Food Inspector with retrospectiTc effect from March '5 ~~.re valid oi- not need not be looked into because bci'.1&" an an1endmem Act, the appointment of the Public Analyst and the Food Jaspector made by the itatc G0Yernn1cnt continued to bo •alid. [3'45B~C] 3. The ~mended sections g and ' do not in any way repeal sections 8 and ' as they originaIIy stood. As to the effect of the amendment the language of the amending sections will have to be examined to find out whether the original conditions were intended to be repealed. The amendini: provisions •hould bl! held as part of the original statute. [345D-E] 4. Whenever the amended section has to be applied subsequent to the date of the an1endment, the unamended provisions of the Act have to be read along with the amended provisions as though they are part of it. Reading the amended section, it is clear that there is no prov1s1on, express or implied. repealing the existing provisions or the rules mhde thereunder. The section \.Vil1 have to be construed as being in addition to what had already existed. The effect will be that the power of the State Government which already existed under the unamended section and the appointments made therennc1rr \vill h~ preserved and the action taken under the atnendcd ~e~~tions will be in addition to the powers of the State Government and the appoint· ments which hod already been made. [345F-G] F G H --.-: - I • • 342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 2 s.c.n. A Nagar Mahapalika. Lucknaw v. Ram Dhani, A.I.R. 1971 All. 53 approvB c D ed. 5. The contention that the analysis of the milk after 44 days must yield to an adverse inference against the State as to adulterntion canuot be accepte(l. [346A] In the present case there is evidence of the Food Inspector that he added formalin as a preservative and the report of the Public Analyst that no change had taken pln<:e in the constituents of milk which would have interfered with the analysis. This statement of the analyst was not challeng~d in any of the courts below. Apart from the statement of the Analyst not having been questioned, in this case it is admitted that formnlin was added to the milk. by the Food InsPector. The Food Inspector added 16 drops of formalin in each of the bottlc;.s and had them sealed properly. Rule 20 of the Pre'fention of Food i\dulleration Rules requires that in the case of n1ilk, cream, Da.hi, Khoa and Gur a preservative known li5 ''formalin", that is to say, a liquid containing about 40 per cent of 'formaldehyde' in aqueous solution in the proportion of 0.1 ml. (two drops) for 25 ml. or 25 grnms shall be added. There is also the clear evidence of Public Analyst that no change had tat.en place in th ## Text ... _. , .l. :341 SAMBHU DAYAL v. STATE OF U.P. Ifovembu 21, 197g [P. S. KAILASAM AND A. D. KOSftAL, JJ.] Prei:t'ntion of ·Food Adulteration Act, 1950 Sections 8 and ' as amended by the Amcndinj.' A ct 49 of 1964---{,'onstruction of-Presumption of adulteration of milk in respect of samples analysed after a fixed period. The appelhu1t was convicted under section 8 read with !ection 16 of the A Pre•1ention of Food Adulteration Act by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalaun C and sentenced to six months rigoroui imprisonment, the minimum sentence awardable under the P.0.F.A. 1950. In appeal the Ses!iona Court reversed it, but in further appeal by the State against his acquitti and reversal of the trial court decision, the High Court of Allahabad set aaide the Session's orders and restored that of the trial court. J)ismissin§: the appeal by special leave the Cou1i. D HELD : l. Sectinns 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration ,\ct, 1950 as amended by sectio~ 5 of the Amending Act 49 of 1964 cannot be read as repealing the old sections and empowering the Central Government or the State Government to appoint the Public Analyst or the Food Inspector after the coming into force of the amendini' Act, implying that any prior appointment ()f a Public Analyst or Food Inspector itood repc.i.led. i345A] E 2. Whether the notifications of the Government in 196~ appointing the Public Analyst and the Food Inspector with retrospectiTc effect from March '5 ~~.re valid oi- not need not be looked into because bci'.1&" an an1endmem Act, the appointment of the Public Analyst and the Food Jaspector made by the itatc G0Yernn1cnt continued to bo •alid. [3'45B~C] 3. The ~mended sections g and ' do not in any way repeal sections 8 and ' as they originaIIy stood. As to the effect of the amendment the language of the amending sections will have to be examined to find out whether the original conditions were intended to be repealed. The amendini: provisions •hould bl! held as part of the original statute. [345D-E] 4. Whenever the amended section has to be applied subsequent to the date of the an1endment, the unamended provisions of the Act have to be read along with the amended provisions as though they are part of it. Reading the amended section, it is clear that there is no prov1s1on, express or implied. repealing the existing provisions or the rules mhde thereunder. The section \.Vil1 have to be construed as being in addition to what had already existed. The effect will be that the power of the State Government which already existed under the unamended section and the appointments made therennc1rr \vill h~ preserved and the action taken under the atnendcd ~e~~tions will be in addition to the powers of the State Government and the appoint· ments which hod already been made. [345F-G] F G H --.-: - I • • 342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 2 s.c.n. A Nagar Mahapalika. Lucknaw v. Ram Dhani, A.I.R. 1971 All. 53 approvB c D ed. 5. The contention that the analysis of the milk after 44 days must yield to an adverse inference against the State as to adulterntion canuot be accepte(l. [346A] In the present case there is evidence of the Food Inspector that he added formalin as a preservative and the report of the Public Analyst that no change had taken pln<:e in the constituents of milk which would have interfered with the analysis. This statement of the analyst was not challeng~d in any of the courts below. Apart from the statement of the Analyst not having been questioned, in this case it is admitted that formnlin was added to the milk. by the Food InsPector. The Food Inspector added 16 drops of formalin in each of the bottlc;.s and had them sealed properly. Rule 20 of the Pre'fention of Food i\dulleration Rules requires that in the case of n1ilk, cream, Da.hi, Khoa and Gur a preservative known li5 ''formalin", that is to say, a liquid containing about 40 per cent of 'formaldehyde' in aqueous solution in the proportion of 0.1 ml. (two drops) for 25 ml. or 25 grnms shall be added. There is also the clear evidence of Public Analyst that no change had tat.en place in the constituents of milk which would interfere \Vith the analyshi. [3460-G, 347Al Babboo v. State, A.LR. 1970 All 122; approved. Dattappa Afahadappa v. Secy., Municipal Committee, Baldar.a, A.I.I... 1951 Ni:tle appoint a Public Analyst and a Food Inspector. The amending Act came into force in 1964. The State Government by notification da.ted 15th April, 1968, appointed Food Inspectors with effect from lst March, 1965 and by notification dated 23rd March, 1968 appointed Dr. R. S. Srivastava as the Public Analyst with effect from !st March, 1965. The submission of the learned counsel is that when the offence took place on 1st November, 1966 neither the Food Inspector nor .the Public Analyst was empowered to function as Food Inspector or Public Analyst as the notification was made Yery much later on 15th April, 1968 and 23rd March, 1968 respectively. It was submitted that the notification cannot give retrosp·octive effect to the appointment from 1st March, 1965. The plea was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge but the High Court held following the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Nagar A R c D E F G H 344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 2 S.C.R. A - Mahapalika v. Ram Dhani( 1) that the notification relating to tbe appointment of the Food Inspector and the Public Analyst issued under the unamended Act was valid even after the amendment. Sections 8 and 9 of th" Food Adulkration Act, 1950 before the amending Act 49 of 1964 stood thus : B "8. Public Aualysts.-The State Government may, by c notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit, and, possessinr; such qualifications as may be prescribed to be Public Analyst and define local areas over which they shall exercise jurisdiction. "9. (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 14, the State Government, may by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint persons in such numlY::r as it thinks fit, having tl1•0 prescribed qualifications to be Food Iru;pectors for the purpose of this Act, and they ·;hall exercise their power within such local areas as that Governm::nt may assign to them;" D The relevant amendment to sections 8 and 9 is contained in section 5c of the amendin~ Act which reads as fol:ows :- E F G H "5. Substitution of now Sections for Sections 8 and 9.·- For sections 8 and 9 of th•c Principal Act, the following sections shall be substituted, namely :--- 8. Public Analysts : The Central Government or the Star:: Government may, by notifications in the Official Gazette appoint snch persons a• it thinks fit. huing the prescribed qnalifications to be Public Ana!v1st for •nch local ar~as as " / may be assitned to them by the Central Government, as tl1c sam" may be : • • 9. Food Inspectors.-( 1) Th·2 Central Government or the State Government nioy, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit, havini: the prescribed qualifications to be Food Inspecfors for such local areas as may b, a~signed to th2m by the Central Government or the State Government as the case may be : • • * • On the facts it is not disputed that on the date of the offence· neither a Public Analyst nor a Food Inspector was appointed after the amending Act 49 of 1964. The learned coun•el would like us to read: (I) A.l.R. 1971 All. 53. ,, SAMBHU DAYAL v. U.P. STATE (Kai/Msam, J.) 3 45 ·sections 8 and 9 of the Act as repealing the old sections and empower- ,ing the Central Go~-ernment or the State Government to appoint the ,Public Analyst or the Food Inspector after the coming into force of .the amending Act implying that any prior appointment of a Public Analyst or Food Inspector stood repealed. We arc unable to acc.::pt this contention. lt is not rrccessary for us to go into the question whether the notifications of the Government in 1968 appointing the Public Analyst and the Food Inspector wilh restrospcctivc effect from March, 1965 arc valid or not for we can r~st our decision on the ground .that being an amending Act the appointment of the Public Analyst and the Food Inspector made by the State Government before the .amendment continued to be valid. In Nagar Mahapa/ika, Lucknow v. .Ram Dlzani, (supra) it was held that when the Food lnsP'octor and the Public Analyst were appointed under notificatiuns dated 27th July, 1959 issued under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the effect of the amending Act, Act of 49 of 1964, was only ;to the extent that the Central Government was given concurrent powers with the Slate Government in the matter of appointment of Public Analyst through notification and that Act 49 of 1964 did not repeal any part of the Food Adulteration Act which then existed and any .amendments in the specific provisions of the said Act which were affected by Act 49 of 1964 will 11ot have the effect of repeal of ""Y part of the said Act. We agree with the vi·ow taken by the Bench -of the Allahabad High Court. The amcnd•od sections 8 and 9 do not in any way repeal sections 8 and 9 as they originally stood. As to the .effect of the amendment the language of the amending sections will have to be examined to find out whether the original sections were ·intended to be repealed. The amending provisions should be held as part of the original statute. Whenever the amended section has to be applied subsequent to tho date of the amendment the unamended provisions of the Act have to be read along with the amended provisions as though they are part of it. Reading the amended section we find that there is no provision, express or implied, repealing the existing ·provisions or the rules made thereunder. The section will have to be construed as being in addition to what had already existed. The effect will In that the power of the State Government which already existed under the unamended section and the appointments made thereunder will be preserved and tbe action tak:on under the amended section~ ·will be in addition to th~ powers of the State Government and the .appointments which had '1lready been made. The second point that was raised by the learned counsel was that 1lhe sample WaB sent to the Public Analyst on 5th November, J 966 > .l 4-978SCI178 A B c D E F G H A B c D E ,, F G H 346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 2 S.C.Rbut was analysed only on 14th December, 1966, As the .rnnlysis was after 44 days it was submitted that the milk would not have been in a fit condition for analysis, This conP"ntion was not accepted by the learned Sessions Judge who found that there was no evidence about the sample of milk being pasteurised or its despatch under refrigeration, But the report of the Public Analyst clearly showed that no change had taken place in the constituents of milk which would have interfered with the analysis. Though this point was not pressed before the High Court th~ learned couns•el relying on a decision of the N ag'?Ur High Court in Dattappa Mahadappa v, Secretary, Municipal Cc11"- mittee, Baldana, (') submitted that where milk is analysed by the Analysts a week after the samples were taken no presumption of adulteration can be drawn in the absence of proof of the manner in which the samples wem sent and the condition in which the milk was when the samples were received by him. The \•earned Judge after referring to the various passages in the text book "Milk : Production and Control" by Harvey and Hill obserwd that taking into account that the milk was analysed by the Analyst almost a week after the samples were taken, the absence of proof of the manner in which the samples were sent and the condition in which the milk was when the samples. were .received by him detracts from the value of anlyst's certificate, In the present case there is, evidence of the Food Inspector that be added formalin as a preservative and the report of the Public Analyst that no change had taken place in the constituents of milk which would have interfered with the analysis, This statement of the analyst was not challenged in any of the courts below. Apart from the c.tatement of the Analyst not having been questioned, in this case it is admitted that formalin was added to the milk by the Forni Inspector. The Foocr Inspector added 16 drops of formalin in each of the bottles and had them soaled properly. Rule 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules requires that in the case of milk, Cream. Dahi. Khoa and Gur a preservative known as 'formalin', that is to say, a liquid containing about 40 per cent of formaldehyde in aqueous solution in the proportion of 0.1 ml (two drops) for 25 ml or 25 grams shall be added. Th" High Court of Allahabad in Babboo v. State(') held that in the case of cow's milk to which necessary quantity of formalin has been added' according to Rules and which has been kept in normal circumstances, it rotains its charac~'T and is capable of being usefully analysed for a period of about ten months, It is unnecessary for us to specify th" period for which the sample will remain unaffected but so far as this case is concerned there is tho clear evidem:e of Public Analyst that no• (t) A.I.R, 1951 Nag, 191. (2) AJ.R. 1970 AIL 122. ,. ' SAMBIIU DAYAL v. U.P. STATE (Kailasam, J.) 347 change had taken place in the constituents of milk which would interA fere with the analysis. As this statement has not been challenged, we see no reason for accepting the contention of the learned counsel that the analysis of the milk after 44 days cannot be accepted. This contention has also to be rejected. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has not. B established that the appellant was lllking the milk for tho purpose of sale. This plea was rejected by the High Court, accepting the evidence