# PYARALI K. TEJANI v. MAHADEO RAM CHANDRA DAN GE AND OTHERS - **Citation:** [1974] 2 S.C.R. 154 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1973-10-31 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/pyarali-k-tejani-v-mahadeo-ram-chandra-dan-ge-and-others-6124 - **Pages:** 15 ## Headnote 154 PYARALI K. TEJANI v. MAHADEO RAM CHANDRA DAN GE AND OTHERS October 31, 1973. fA. N. RAY, C.J:, D. G. PALEKAR, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. N. . BHAGWATI AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.j . / PreVPhtion nf Food Adulteration Act 195~Rules 44(g) and 47-Sale of .supari with .s<~ccharin and cyclamate-Co11s1icuionali1y of the Rules and nL!e 1nakinf( power-Suvari if fnod-GuideUnes in sentencjng~Applicability of Pro• bationers Offenders Act. 1947. . The appellant/petitioner. a dealer in scen~ed supJ.ri, was charged. with the offence of having !iold and retained for selling scented supari with &accharin and cvdamate, prohibited artificial sweeteners. in contravention of S. ?(i)(ii) and rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and thereby having .commit!ed an offer..:e punishable under· section 16(1)(z:)(i) of the Act. The ~fagistrate convicted the accused and imposed a fine of only l~s. -100/·. On· revision tb:: liigh Court enhanced the punishment to the statutory minimum of six months imprisonment ard one thousa·nd rupees fine. The rules ~·hich \.Vere extant it the time of the alleged offence in January 1971 were rules 44(£) and 47 as redrafted by the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Third Amendment) Rules 1968 which prohibited the two sweeteners as additives to supari. Jn October 1972, a circular was: issu·!d by the fl..1un!cipal Corporation of Greater Ilombay that the Central Commiti.ee for Food Standards had accepted the recum· mendation of i~s Sub·Committee thz:t '3accharin may be permitted to be us~d' in scented S:upari. Jn appeal of this Court the appeliant admitted the sale as also th.! presenc:! of saccha:in and cyclam;i.te in the supari sample. But he urged that s:.:!ion 23(i)(b) of the Act which emoowered the frz..mir:.~ of rules was bad, because, the stz.:tute Jaid down no policy, prir..;:iples or guidelines regarding th·! articles of food for which standards are to be prescribed, that supari is noti an a·r!icle of food and. as su:h, the admixture of any sweetener cannot altract the per.11 provisions; that the dealer believed in good.fa-ith that .there was no cyclamate in the substance sold induced by the _\varranty and did not know that saccharin was contraband, that neither saccharin nor cyclamate is bio-chemical risk. ~nd i;;o a blanket ban on their use is an unconstitutional restriction on !he f:eedom of trade guaranteed in a:rticle 19; that there is discrimination against supari vis.a-v.!s carbonated waters \\'-herein -the use of :roaccharin is permitted under ml•:: 47; and that in any event the Probation of Offenders Act should have been applied. Dismissing the appeal and the writ petition·. HELD: (i) The· contravention of s. 7· read with rr. 44{g) and 47 being pla·inly p:oved the offence falls not under sub·s. (i) but sub-sec. (v) None Of the many alternatives in s. 2(i) applies beca-11~ there is neither avcrmer..t nor proof that the sweeteners in Question are injurious_ to health and the other cub· clause ·Cannot be attracted. [159G] (ii) The naked power submissioi:. is demolished by the guidelines in1plicit ir:. the statute, by the committ~e built in•o the system, by the specifications contained in the rule makini? provisions and by the safeguard of laying the rules before the House. [lblH] (iii) Supari is food within_ the meaning of s. 2(v) of tho: ·Act. The Ac~ define-. 'food' very widely as covering any article used as food and every component which enters into it and even flavouring matter ::td the improbabilities of .moral proselytisation~ No chance-;; can be taken by society with a mar.. _\\-·hose antisocial operations, disguised as a respectz.·b1e trade, imperil numerous innocents. Secondly cconornicoffences committed by white collar-criminals are unlikejy to be dissuaded by the gentle probationary process. [166H]' fther Das v. State of Puniab, fl9721 3 S.C.C. 65. referred to. (vii) The Cou;-t ha·3 jurisdiction to brir·~ down the sentence to less than therninimum prescribed in s. 16(1) provided there are adequate and special rea-sons · in that behalf. The normal minimum is six month3 in jail and a thou·sand rupees fine. There is no reason to depart from th~ proposition that generally· food offences must be deterrently dealt with; The High Court, under the erroneous impression that the offence fell under s. 7(1) read \\-"_ith s. I6(1)(a)(I) did not address itself to the quantum of sentence. Even so that punishrrent fits the crime and the criminal. TI1e magistrate completely failed to appreciate the gr~vity of food offer:.::es when- he imposed the negligib'e senttenc·.! of on! hundred rupees fine. [167Hl fTbe necessity for the evolution of a rational and consis~ent policy of ren-- rencing emphasised.] .. CRIMINAL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1973. ' Appeal by Special leave from the judgment and order dated the 19th December, 1972 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 979 of 1971. Writ Petition No. 29 of 1973. Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of • fundamental rights .. V. B. Ganatra, I. N. Shroff, and R. P. Kapoor, for the appellant in 11 appeal and petitioner in Writ Petifion. Y. S. Chitale .M. S. Ganesh and S. B. Wad, for respondent No. I (in appeal and writ petition). 156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1974] 2 s.c.R. M. N. Phadke. H. R. Khanna and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No. 2 ( n appeal and Writ Petition). G. Das and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No. 3 (in Writ Petition :\o. 29 /73). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA ]YER, J. A successful prosecution for a food offence ended in a conviction of the accused, followed by a flea-bite fine of Rs. 100/-. T \VO criminal revisions ensued at the instance of the State and the Food Inspector separately since they were dissatisfied with the magisterial leniency. (Why two revision proceedings should have been instituted, involving duplication of cases and avoidable expenditure front the public exchequer is for the authorities to examine and inhibit in future). The High Court heard the accused against the emwiction itself but upheld the guilt and enhanced the punishment to the statutory n1inimum vf six months imprisonment and one thousand rupees fine. The aggrieved dealer has reached here through the twin routes of art. 32 a writ petition bristling with challenges of settled concepts an~ hanging every argument on the familiar peg of breach of fundamental rights and of art. 136 a remedy to correct gross errors of law leading to the manifest injustice of loss of liberty for a long term of one who. the prosecution charged. jeopardised the lives of many consumers. The petitioner before us is the active partner of a firm, Gits Food Products (India), Poona. which, among other things, deals in scented supari. A sample of this stuff was purchased from the accused by the Food Inspector. Poona (P.W. I) at a price of Rs. 24/- for 600' grams on January 25. 1971. A little diary of events will help unfold the rival contentions. The supari sample was duly analysed by the Public Analyst and his report dated February 12, 1971 revealed the offending presence of tv ... ·o artificial sweeteners. nan1ely, saccharin and cyclamate . . The Municipal Medical Officer of Health, Poona, granted the requisite statutory consent to prosecute and the very next day, February 26, 1971. a complaint was laid before the First Class Magistrate having iurisdiction. On the strength of the prosecution evidence a charge was frnmed on July 13, 1971, thus: "That you, on or about the 15th' day of January 1971 (it should read 25th January 1971) at 9.30 a.m., sold and retained for selling the Nandi Brand scented supari with saccharin and cyclamate. prohibited artificial sweetner, adulterated supari in contravention of Section 7(i)(ii), Rule 47, of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and that thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954." The accused's plea of inno:ence and supporting evidence notwith- · standing. a conviction was recorded under s. 7(1) read withs. 16(1) (a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954 (the Act. for short). and on September 30, 1971 the accused was sentenced venially. for certain special reasons mentioned by the Magistrate, to a sn1all fine. Revision appJications were carried, as earlier stated, and rt.he High Court .,vhi1e confirming the conviction, substituted a· severer A D c D F G H A B c D E F G H P. K. TEJANI v. M. R. DANGE (Krishna Iyer, I.) 157 sentence, having no power to inflict less, in its view of the law. The / appellant in this Court has, by way of second string to his exculpatory bow, challenged the vires of rules 44(g) and 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter called "the Rules"), and even of s. 23(2) of the Act as being violative of arts. 14 and 19(1) (f) and (g). The reliefs claimed in both the writ petition and the criminal appeal converge towards the same end of getting an acquittal for the accused. Before proceeding to a formulation of the points raised at the Bar and a discussion and decision thereon, two minor episodes deserve to be mentioned because counsel for the accused has built on them an argument for amelioration. As if to satisfy himself and to impress, by conduct, his innocence on the Court, the accused sent a sample · of saccharin from the same tin from. which the supari sold to the Food Inspector was sweetened. Ex. 22, dated March I, 1971, shows that even before the filing of the criminal complaint the accused had requested for an analysis of a sample of saccharin sent by him on February 23, 1971, the result of the examination being that cyclamate was present in it. The further fact placed before the Court, by the accused was that he had purchased saccharin in tins sold by the Standard Chemical and Pharmaceutical Co., Bombay, that these "Cycle" brand tins were stated to be of extra pure quality and the receptacles themselves CO!ltained a printed warranty like Ex. 31. The story of the accused is that it was such ultra pure quality of saccharin for which the manufacturer had given a warranty that found its way into the sweet supari he sold and that cyclamate was expressly declared to 15&- absent therein by the manufacturer of the sweetener. His· good faith was th.us above board, according to the advocate for the appellant. A close-up of the law relevant to this case will help focus attention on the criminal area into which the appellant is alleged to have entered. The central concept of the statute is prevention of adulteration of food in the sombre background of escalating manoeuvres by pro· Ii.leers who seek to draw dividends from the ·damage to the health of the people caused by trade in adulteration. The social sterness and wide sweep of the statute can be realised from the thought that an insidious host that internally erodes the vitality of a nutritionally defi· cient nation is, in one sense, a greater menace than a visible army of aggression at our frontiers and so the police power of the State must reach out to protect the unsuspecting community with overpowering laws against those whose activities are a serious hazard to public health. And so a minimum jail term is fixed in the Act itself. Now to the Act and its scheme. "Food" is defined very widely in s. 2(v) and 'adulteration' also has been assigned a considerable ranoe ·of meaning in s. 2(i). Power to make rules to effectuate the statute is conferred on fhe Central Government in s. 23 so that nutritional details, bio-chemical nuances, variable factors of scientific advance, new .commercial cunning and astute legal antidotes, may all be flexibly provtded for {rom time to time without moving the legislature for fre· quent statutory amendments. The area covered· being technical the requisite expertise is drawn from. a specialist' committee constituted 158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ( 1974] 2 S.C.R. under s. 3 whom Government must consult before framing rules under s. 23 (2). Rules made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament so that control on such subordinate legislation may be effectively .exercised Section 16 invests the law with sharp teeth taking a severe view of the nature of the offence and prescribes a minimum of 6 months R.I. and Rs. 1,000/- fine for all offences, even first offences. This is a discretion-proof prescription of legislative sentence but when the offience falls under the proviso to s. 16(1) the Court may, for .special reasons to be recorded, reduce the punishment. Having regard to the several limitations on magisterial powers of sentencing under the Cr. P.C., s. 21 removes those trammels when JlUnishing food offenders. Section 7, of course, is the provision defining and classifying the .offences and it is relevant to recognise one distinction. Sale of 'adulterated' food attracts s. 7 (i) while violations of the rules are caught in the coils of s. 7(v). This differentiation is linked to s. 16. For, an offence .under sec. 7 (v) read withs. 16(l)(a)(ii) brings into play the margin~! mitigatory discretion vested in the magistrate under the pro- ·viso thereto. In short, sale of 'adulterated' food is visited, willy nilly, with nothing less than 6 months RJ. and Rs. 1000/- fine, as imposed in this case by the High Court. Sale merely in derogation of the Rules ·Jeaves the Court room for awarding a lesser penalty as the Magistrate has done. Since the defence is of absence of mens rea and indemmity .derived from a warranty, section 19 needs mention. It runs thus and is self-explanatory : '19(2) A vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves- ( a) that he purchased the article of food- (i) in a case where a licence is prescribed for the sale thereof, from a duly Hcen'lt'd manufacturer, distributor or dealer;· (ii) in any other case, from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer; with a written warranty in the prescribed form; and A_ B c II> E F (b) that the ar.ticle of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he sold it in the same state as he purchased it". • G Two rules, as they originally stood and as now modified, figured .during· arguments and they had better be extracted here without comment. "4, Sale of certain admixtures prohibited-Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 43, no person shall either himself H or by any servant or agent sell- (g) any article of food which contains any artificial sweetner, except Saccharin, or in the preparation of which any such artificial sweetner has been used". P. K. TEJANI v. M. R. DANGE (Krishna Iyer, J.) 159 A 47-Addition of Saccharin to be mentioned on the B c n E F G H label.- Saccharin may be cdded to any food if the container of such food is labelled with an adhesive declaratory !able, which shall be in the form given below : "This.. . (name of food). . . . . . . . contains an admixture of Saccharin. These rules held the field from November 24, 1956 until August 24, 1968 when they were further amended. The prevention of Food Adulteration (Third Amendment) Rules, !968, redrafted rules 44(g) and 47, and it is these new rules which were extant at the time of the alleged offence (January 25, 1971). It is proper at this stag< to reproduce these two rules. · · "44. Sale of certain admixtures prohibited.-Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 43 no person shall either by himself or by any servant or agent sell .. - (g) any article of food which contains any artificial sweetner except where such artificial sweetner is ,permitted in accordance with the standards laid down in Appendix B''. "4 7. Addition of artificial sweetner to be mentioned on the label.-Saccharin or any other artificial sweetner shall not be added to any article of food, except where the addition of such artificial sweetner is permitted in accordance with the standards laid down in Appendix "B" and where any artificial sweetner is added to any food the container of such food shall be labelled with an adhesive-declaratory label which shall be in the form given below : "This .. (name of food) ...... contains an admixture .... (name of the artificial sweatner). The use of a saccharin is permitted under Rule 47 in case of carbonated water in item 5 (3-A 1.01.01 but no such benefit is enjoyed by supari. Cyclamates have never been permitted sweeteners. The crucial inculpatory facts are virtually admitted. The sale is established and so also the presence of saccharin and cyc!amate in the supari sample. Under the Rules extant on January 25, 1971 the appellant admits the two sweetners are prohibited as additives to supari. The contravention of s. 7 read with rr. 44(g) and 47 being plainly proved the offence falls not under sub-s. (i) but sub-s. (v). None of the many alternatives in s. 2(i) applies because there is neither averment nor proof-and counsel for the State fairly conceded this-that the sweeteners in question are injurious to health and the other subclauses cannot be attracted. Perhaps they are. Even if they are not it is perfectly possible that the State may ban their use. But it these additives are toxic it is a failure of duty of the Food Inspector not to have averred in the complaint and adduced evidence in support, a ,. mattc-r which the concerned authorities will consider. Indifferent · 160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1974 J 2 S.C.R. action of the prosecution also occasions failure of justice to the community especially when faceless victims are involved like under food regulation Jaws. Any way, the fact is-and the court cannot help it -the absence of evidence (a) that the supari contains any poisonous or other ingredients which renders it injurious to health or (b) that it contains any other substance causing injury as indicated ins. 2(i) (b) puts the offence out of s. 7 (i) and brings it within s. 7(v). The further fortunes of saccharin and cyclamate in official eyes has a bearing on the plea of the accused. It transpires that the Central Committee for Food Standards, constituted under s. 23 ( 1) of the Act is stated to have accepted the recommendation of its sub-committee to the effect that saccharin may be permitted to be used in scented supari to the extent of 100 parts per million, and steps are under way for suitable amendments to the rules. It is also on record that the Commissioner, Food & Drugs Administration, Maharashtra State, com· municated this information to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay pursuant to which a circular dated October 24, I Q72 was issued by the Corporation which states; "Circular Subject : .Licensing of scented supari. The Commissioner Food and Drug Administration, has informed this office that the Central Committee for Food Standards has accepted the recommendation of its sub-committee that saccharin may be permitted to be used in scented supari to the extent oi 100 p.p.m. and that C.C.P.S. is moving the Government of India, Ministry of Health, for suitable amendment to the Rules. In view of this, it is not advisable to institute prosecutions as merely for pre.sence of saccharin in scented supari anJ where such cases have already been launched the papers should be submitted to this office for orders for withdrawal. The Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, has further informed this office that in view of the proposed amendments, firms adding saccharin to the aforesaid limit in supari can be licensed under M.P.F.A. Rules." So far cyclamate ls concerned, although the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules do not permit its use it is seen in the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules a ban on the use of cyclamates was introduced only on June 21, 1972 and that is relied on to argue that till that time it was not regarded as injurious "a sort of aliki for its presence in the accused's supari sample. The relevant rule is rule 84(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. With this background of the Act and the Rules we may evaluate the pleas urged by counsel for the accused which we proceed to formulate. Of course, the spectrum of submissions has ranged from chal· Ienging the status of supari "as food and the toxicological hazards of saccharin and cyclamate and culminated in the unconstitutionality of the rules which ban the use of these food additives, and even the rule-making power, s. 23, for violation of arts. 14 and 19(1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution. Covering this ground, the appellant hopefully'posed the following questions which are may itomise thus : (l) Is supari food? A B c I> E F G, A B c D P. K. TEJANI v. M. R. DANGE (Krishna Iyer, ],) 161 (2) ls not good faith of the vendor legally exculpatory even in a. food offence? (3) Can saccharin or cyclamate be regarded as li.ealth hazards at an·1 If not, is it not an μnreasonable and, therefore, unconstitutional restriction on freedom of trade to prevent and punish sales of articles innocuously sweetened by these innocent additives ? . ( 4) Does not the history of the Rules (and the D & G Rules clamping down control on the use of saccharin and cyclamatc recently) demonstrate--particularly in the context of the technical and adminis· trative re-thinking on admixture of saccharin reflected in the circulars -the arbitrariness. and unreasonableness of the new rules 44(g) and 4 7, liable therefore to be struck down under art. 13 read with arts. 14 and 191 ( 5 )· In the light of carbonated waters being permitted to use sa~charin, is it not arbitrary to single out supari for discrirninatory' embargo on the use of this artificial sweetner and does not rule 4 7 fail for violation of art. 14? ( 6) Does the offence, assuming the facts of the prosecution to be proved, fell under s,' 16(i)(a}(i) the impact of such finding being material so the issue of sentence? (7) Should the-sentence, in the facts and circumstartces of the case. be so draconian? ; · · (8) In' al\Y view, the respectable trader, that the accused is, the ProbaJ,Iol] of:QJ'fiiiii1t :bardlj_. des.en;_e notice. Tliey reveal .more the range of legaf resourcefuJ,ness . than confidence in the journey to guiltlessne~s: Before proceeding to discuss the points so fram,d we may dispose Qf the extraordinary- plea ·that.s,, 23{1·}(.fi)..o~ .. the ·A"Ct;-empowe-rin~ t11e Central Oovernrnent, in c1>ns)lltation.withthe Expert Committee, to make ru\es defining tb.<; ~s\andards and quality for and fixing the limits of variability perrμ\ssible .in respect of any article of food, is bad since the · · sta!ute lays down :110 policy; principles nor guidelines regarding the G articles. 9f food foi:. which standards are to be prescribed, etc. etc. The vice of uncanalised executive power and the evil of excessive delegation of legislative power are the two fatal factors pressed before :us. Had counsel granted us some familiarity with this branch of constitu •. tion~l law everybody's time would pro tanto have lie.-n saved'.'' Comprehensive po\Ve.rs C)f. rule·rnal<~ng. haY.<;. been ".ested .. in .th~ ·-~~ntral Government, and sinc.e the. subiect is ~°'l!nic:al there.i~ .a 4irection in H the statute to O.overnrnent \hat tbe C~~\ra[ ,Go_mw_ijt~e. for Food Standards shall be s;onsiitμted ·consisting of. specia!i~ts in the various fields concerned and. to consult t.hat Commi!tee J:>.e~C)re framing rules. The 'naked power' submission is demolished by the guidelines implicit in 12-L447SCI/74 162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1974) 2 S.C.R. the statute, by the Committee built into the system, by the specifica· tions contained in the rule-making provisions and by the safeguard of laying the rules before the Houses. We now proceed to consider the bold bid made by the appellant to convince the Court that supari is not an article of food and, as such, the admixture of any S\.\·eetener cannot attract t11e penal provisions at all. He who runs and reads the definition in s. 2(v) of the Act will answer back that supari is food. The laxicographic learning, pharmacopic erudition, the ancient medical literature and extracts of encyclopaedias pressed before us with great industry are worthy of a more substantial submission. Indeed, learned counsel treated us to an extensive study to make out that supari was not a food but a drug. He ex· plained the botany of bettlenut, drew our attention to Dr. Nandkarni's Indian Matcria Medica, invited us lo the great Susruta's reference to this aromatic stimulant in a valiant endeavour to persuade us to hold that supari was more m::dicinal than edible. We are here con· cerned with a law regulating adulteration of food which effects the common people in their millions and their health. We are dealing with a commodity which is consumed by the ordinary man in houses, hotels, marriage parties and even routinely. In the field of legal interpretation, dictionary scholarship and precedent-based connotations cannot become a univer~al guide or semantic tyrant. oblivious of the social context, subject of legislation and object of the law. The meaning of common words relating to common articles consumed by the common people, available commonly a.nd contained in a statute intended to protect the community generally, must be gathered from the commonsense. understanding of the word. The Act defines 'food' very widely as covering any article used as food and every component which enters foto it, and even flavouring matter and condiments. It is commonplace knowledge that the word "food" is a very general term and applies to all that is eaten by man for-nourishment and takes in subsidiaries. Is supari eaten with relish by man for taste and nourishment? It is. And so it is food. Without carrying further on this unusual argument we hold that supari is food within the meaning of s. 2(v) of the Act. It was next urged before us that the dealer believed in good faith that there was no cyclamate in the substance sold induced by the warranty and honestly did not know that saccharin was contraband, the rules in this behalf having been changed frequently and recently. It is trite law that in food offences strict liability is the rule not merely under the Indian Act but all the worI.d over. The principle has been explained in American Jurisprudence (2d, Vol. 35, p. 864) thus: "Intent as element of offence : B c D E F G The distribution of impure or adulterated food for consumption is an act perilous to human life and health, hence, a dangerous act. and cannot be made innot,ent and harmless H by the want of knowledge or by the rrood faith of the seller; it is the act itself, not the intent, that determines the guilt, and P. K: TEJA~I v. }.I. R. DA~·GE (Kris!zna Iyer, J.) 163 A the actual harm to the public is the same in one case as in the oth.:-r. Thu:i,' the si.!!ler of fooj is 'Under the duty of ascertaining at his peril whether the article of food conforms to the standard fixed by statute or ordinance, unless such statutes or ordinances 7 expressly or by implication, make intent an element of the offence." B Nothing mere than the acrus reus is needed where regulation of private activity in vulnerable areas like public health is intended. In the words of Lord Wright in McLeod v. Buchanan(') "intention to commit a breach of statute need not be shown. The breach in fact is enough." Social defence reasonably overpowers individual freedom to injure. in special situations of .strict liability. Section 7 casts an ab:;oC · lute obligation regardless of scienter, bad faith and mens rea. Jf you have sold any article of food contrary to any of the· sub'sections of s. 7, you are guilty. There is no more argument about it. The law denies the right of a dealer to rob .the health of a supari consumer. We may merely refer to a similar plea over-ruled in the case reported in [(1971) 1 S.C.R. 166].-Andhra Pradesh Grain & Seed Merc!:mm Association v. Union of India.(') D E ·.F .G H It was strenuously submitted that neit!icr . saccharin nor cyclamate is a bio-chemical risk and so a blanket ban on their Use is an unC<1:15titut!onal restri;:tion on the freedom of trade, apart fro1n b~ing ulaa i·ires the m'e·making power in s. 23 (I). Saccharin was surely a permissible sweetener till the rules were modified in August 1963. It is also a fact that cyclamate v.:hich was not permissib~~ n.s an additive under the Rules was prohibited front going into medicinal prepara:ions only in 1971 by a rule under the Druzs and Cosmotics Act. It is well· knO\'\"ll that' saccharin is used by many pcop~e medicinally for diJb~tics or obosity. The short-term and long-tern efkcts of saccharin on rats and human beings were reviewed in the F.A.A./W.H.O. meeting held in Geneva in 1967 and the following comments were made : · "The extensive biochemical studies with saccharin and sodium saccharin show the .inertness of these substances. Following an oral dose, saccharin appears unchanged in the urine of man within half-hour and is completely excerted within 48 hours. The long recorded use by man without any apparent deleterious effects in normal individuals and diabetic patients indicates the safety of the normal intakes of saccharin. Although long-term animal studies are limited to rats, two reports show no effects at dosage levels as high as 1 per cent. and onlv slight growth retardati0n at 5 per cent These studies are adequate to rule out carcinogenicity. The carcinogenicity studies are limited to skin application and biadd~r implantation in mice and lack significance in the cral use of ~accharin for man. Reports on studies i:i mice. rats and rabits are adeouat.e to shOw the Jack of anv effect on fertility and progeny.~· • (I) [19;0] 2 A.E.R. i;9 ;i 186 [H.I.1 (~) [1971J ? S.C.F. !ffl 164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ( 1974 j 2 S.C.R. However; in view of the marginal potential danger of saccharin if conswned in considerable quantities, the Uaited States removed saccharin from the GRAS (Generally Recognised As Safe) list of food additives and restricted its use in a prescribed way. TI1is measure, calculated to 'freeze' saccharin at low levels pending final outcome of current research on safety, has had its impact on Indian scientists. Current experiments in America probably indicate that at high levels of consumption some test animals develop bladder tumours which may be cancerous. The expert sub-committee of the Central Committee for Food Standards considered the use of saccharin in 1971 in the light of investigations on toxicity designed to evaluate the hazards from the standpoint of carcinogenesis. While saccharin is not positively shown to be carcinogenatic the Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow, observed that it had a growth-retarding effect with a· poor rice diet, ond therefore should be carefully restricted, 70% of our population being under-nourished or mal-nourished. The Central Committee, after weighing the pros and cons of the use of saccharin in foods, recommended the continuance of the ban on saccharin in general but agreed for special exemptions considering each food on its merits. It ap!)>oars that in regard to carbonated waters, if a man takes four bottles, the total daily intake per adult of saccharin would be approximately 50 mgs. per day whereas the recommended maximum limit is 350 mgs. per day. That is why carbonated waters are permitted the admixture of limited quantities of saccharin. The Committee appears to be taking the view . that saccharin at a low level may be permitted in supari with .a proper declaration of its presence. On account of this recommendation of the Central Committee, the circular referred to earlier in this judgment was probably sent out pursuant to the .communkation by the Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Maharashtra State. Even on cyclarnates, the toxic degree is not too clear. There is considerable controversy both in the United States and the United Kingdom about a total ban on cyclamates but there is a growing volume of opinion that its use has caused bladder tumour when massive doses are fed on rats. In India also scientific opinion is sharply divided on the harmful consequences of cyclamates. However, in the United States and_ the United Kingdom, in Japan and other countries there is a ban on this substance and the Indian official view seems to be that without more information on the mechanism of bladder cancer induction in rats by the cyclamate:saccharin mixture we have to follow the example of the United States. No risks can be taken where millions of people and their lives are involved and cancer being a sure killer does not admit of bio-chemical gamble or medical speculation particularly when the lndian people, by and large, are less health..::onscious and informed than Americans and Britons. Such being the facts, it is not the judicial function to enter the thicket of research controversy or scientific dispute where Parliament has entrusted the Central Government with the power, and therefore the duty, of protecting public health against potential hazards and the Central Government, after consultation with a high-powered technical A B c D E F G H A B c E r P. K. TEJANI v. ·M. R. DANGB (Krishna Iyer, J.) 165 body, has prohibited the use of saccharin and cyclamates. The fact that for a long time these substances were allowed is no argument against the reasonableness of their later ban; for human knowledge advances and what was regarded as innocuous once is later discovered to be deleterious. In no view can the discretion of the government, exercised after listening to ·the technical counselling of the Central Committee, be castigated as arbitrary and capricious or as unreasonable .. So long as the exercise of power is not smeared by bad faith, influenced by· extraneous considerations, uninformed by relevant factors, and is within the limits of reasonableness it becomes 0111 of bounds for judicial re-evaluation. Where expertise of a complex nature is expected of the State in framing rules, the exercise of that power not demomtrated as arbitrary must be presumed to be valid as a reasonable restriction on: the fundamental right of the citizen and judicial review must halt at the frontiers. The court cannot re-weigh and substitute its notion of expedient solution. Constitutionality not chemistry, abuse not error, is our concern and· the Executive has not transgressed limits at all here. Within the wide judge-proof areas of policy and judgment open to the government, if they make mistakes, correctlo11 is not in court. but elsewhere. That is the comity of constitutional jurisdictions in our jurisprudence. We cannot evolve a judicial policy on medical issues or food additives and should refuse to invalidate rules 44(g) and 4 7 on the mystic maybes and happy hopefuls held up before us by the appellant. Nor is there any substance whatever in the plea that there is a discrimination against suparl vis-a-vis carbonated waters. There is a basis for the distinction. All judicial thought, Indian and Anglo- "merican, ·on the judicial review power where rules under challenge relate to a specialised field and involve sensitive facets of public welfare, has warned courts off easy assumption of unreas.onableness of subordinate legislation on the strength of half-baked studies of judicial generalists aided by the· ad·hoc learning of counsel. The Court certainly is the constitutional invigilator and must act to defend the citizen in the assertion of his fundamental rights against executive tyranny draped in discretionary power but here no case for it exists. It is smyrising that the ruling in Kar tar Singh' s case (') bas not deterred the urging of this contention. Dealing with! a similar argument under the same Act this Court over-ruled the High Court's judgment striking do\\n the impugned rules, and stated : G "We do not consider that the Court was justified in practically legislating and laying down what the rules should be rather than ~ive effect to the law by adh,rence to the rules. as framed." We respectfully agree with this guide-line. Violation of arts. 14 and 19 by thel Act and the Rules has been urged but repelled so H late as in the Andhra Grain Merchants case(') but some constitutional. pleas. here parties are rich, die hard and ride on the hardships of the small man. (I) [19641 6 S.C.R. 679: 690. (2) [1971] 1 S.C.R. 166. 166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ( 1974.),,2 S.C.R .• Culpability being thus conclusive we have to fix the precise provision under which the guilt arises. In the absence of proof that the addition of saccharin and cycla!l1ilte are injurious to health the food cannot be called 'adulterated' in statutory vocabulary. Never-the-less there is undisputed violation of rr. 44(g) and 47 and so the accused is guilty under s. 16(1) read with s.