# RUPAK KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR

- **Citation:** [2014] 3 S.C.R. 568
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2014-03-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 541-542 of 2014
- **Bench:** Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, Pinaki Chandra Ghose
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rupak-kumar-v-state-of-bihar-anr-29616
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: s.482 -
C Quashing of criminal proceedings - Food inspector found the
articles stored for consumption of prisoners in the jail
premises to be adulterated -
Case registered against the
Superintendent of Jail uls.16(1)(a) of Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 - Petition for quashing of issuance of
D summons - High Court dismissed the petition - Held: s. 7
prohibits a person to manufacture for sale or store, sell or
distribute any adulterated food - Contravention of s. 7 by any
person is punishable u/s. 16 - Expression 'store' as used in s. 7
and s. 16 means storage of adulterated article of food for sale
E - Storage of adulterated article other than for sale does not
come within the mischief of s. 16 of the Act - Therefore,
criminal proceedings quashed - Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 - s.16.
The appellant was posted as Superintendent of
F District Jail. Food Inspector visited the jail premises and
collected samples of various materials including Haldi and
Rice. Those articles were stored for consumption of the
prisoners. The Public Analyst held these samples to be
adulterated. A case was registered against the appellant
G under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954. The Magistrate took cognizance of offence
under Section 16(1 )(a) of the Act and directed issuance
of process. The revision petitions thereagainst were
dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant filed applications
H
568
RUPAK KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
569
under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings.
A
The High Court dismissed the applications. Hence, the
instant appeals.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 7 of the Prevention of Food
B
Adulteration Act, 1954 prohibits a person to 'manufacture
for sale' or 'store' or 'sell' or 'distribute', inter alia, any
adulterated food. Contravention of Section 7 by any
person is punishable under Section 16 of the Act. Section
10 of the Act talks about the power of Food Inspector and
C
under this Section, he is empowered to take sample of
any article of food from any person selling such article. A
conjoint reading of provisions makes it clear that the Food
Inspector has the power to take sample of any article of
food from any person selling such article under subD
section (1) whereas sub-section (2) confers on him the
power to enter and inspect any place where any article of
. food is manufactured, stored or exposed for sale and take
samples of such articles of food for analysis. Section 16
provides for penalties. According to section 16(1), 'any
E
person, who by himself or by any other person on his
behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells any
adulterated article is liable to be punished. In the instant
case, according to the prosecution, the appellant, a
Superintendent of Jail, had stored Rice and Haldi and,
F
therefore, his act comes within the mischief of Section 7
and 16 of the Act. In view of the said, what needs to be
decided is as to whether the expression 'store' as used in
Section 7 and Section 16 of the Act would mean storage
simplicitor or storage for sale. Conjoint reading of Section
G
7, Section 10 and Section 16 of the Act shows that the Act
is intended to prohibit and penalise the sale of any
adulterated article of food. The term 'store' shall take
colour from the context and the collocation in which it
occurs in Section 7 and 16 of the Act. Applying the
H
570
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 3 S.C.R.
A aforesaid principle, 'storage' of an adulterated article of
food other than for sale does not come within the mischief
of Section 16 of the Act. [Para 6, 7, 9) [572-H; 573-A-B; 57 48-D, H; 575-A-D]
8
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Laxmi Narain Tandon,
(1976) 1 sec 546 - relied on.
2. In the case in hand, it is not the allegation that the
appellant had stored adulterated food article (Haldi and
Rice) for sale. The allegations made did not constitute any
C offence and, hence, the prosecution of the appellant for
a

## Text

A
B
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 568
RUPAK KUMAR
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 541-542 of 2014)
MARCH 04, 2014
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: s.482 -
C Quashing of criminal proceedings - Food inspector found the
articles stored for consumption of prisoners in the jail
premises to be adulterated -
Case registered against the
Superintendent of Jail uls.16(1)(a) of Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 - Petition for quashing of issuance of
D summons - High Court dismissed the petition - Held: s. 7
prohibits a person to manufacture for sale or store, sell or
distribute any adulterated food - Contravention of s. 7 by any
person is punishable u/s. 16 - Expression 'store' as used in s. 7
and s. 16 means storage of adulterated article of food for sale
E - Storage of adulterated article other than for sale does not
come within the mischief of s. 16 of the Act - Therefore,
criminal proceedings quashed - Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 - s.16.
The appellant was posted as Superintendent of
F District Jail. Food Inspector visited the jail premises and
collected samples of various materials including Haldi and
Rice. Those articles were stored for consumption of the
prisoners. The Public Analyst held these samples to be
adulterated. A case was registered against the appellant
G under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954. The Magistrate took cognizance of offence
under Section 16(1 )(a) of the Act and directed issuance
of process. The revision petitions thereagainst were
dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant filed applications
H
568
RUPAK KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
569
under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings.
A
The High Court dismissed the applications. Hence, the
instant appeals.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 7 of the Prevention of Food
B
Adulteration Act, 1954 prohibits a person to 'manufacture
for sale' or 'store' or 'sell' or 'distribute', inter alia, any
adulterated food. Contravention of Section 7 by any
person is punishable under Section 16 of the Act. Section
10 of the Act talks about the power of Food Inspector and
C
under this Section, he is empowered to take sample of
any article of food from any person selling such article. A
conjoint reading of provisions makes it clear that the Food
Inspector has the power to take sample of any article of
food from any person selling such article under subD
section (1) whereas sub-section (2) confers on him the
power to enter and inspect any place where any article of
. food is manufactured, stored or exposed for sale and take
samples of such articles of food for analysis. Section 16
provides for penalties. According to section 16(1), 'any
E
person, who by himself or by any other person on his
behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells any
adulterated article is liable to be punished. In the instant
case, according to the prosecution, the appellant, a
Superintendent of Jail, had stored Rice and Haldi and,
F
therefore, his act comes within the mischief of Section 7
and 16 of the Act. In view of the said, what needs to be
decided is as to whether the expression 'store' as used in
Section 7 and Section 16 of the Act would mean storage
simplicitor or storage for sale. Conjoint reading of Section
G
7, Section 10 and Section 16 of the Act shows that the Act
is intended to prohibit and penalise the sale of any
adulterated article of food. The term 'store' shall take
colour from the context and the collocation in which it
occurs in Section 7 and 16 of the Act. Applying the
H
570
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 3 S.C.R.
A aforesaid principle, 'storage' of an adulterated article of
food other than for sale does not come within the mischief
of Section 16 of the Act. [Para 6, 7, 9) [572-H; 573-A-B; 57 48-D, H; 575-A-D]
8
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Laxmi Narain Tandon,
(1976) 1 sec 546 - relied on.
2. In the case in hand, it is not the allegation that the
appellant had stored adulterated food article (Haldi and
Rice) for sale. The allegations made did not constitute any
C offence and, hence, the prosecution of the appellant for
an offence under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act would be an
abuse of the process of the Court. The appellant's
prosecution in both the cases is quashed. [Para 10, 11)
[575-G-H; 576-A-B]
D
Case Law Reference:
(1976) 1 sec 546
relied on
Para 9
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
E No. 541-542 of 2014.
From the Judgment & Order dated 3.1.2011 of the High
Court of Patna in CRLM No. 15471 and 15527 of 2010.
Nagendra Rai, Shantanu Sagar, Smarhar Singh, Gopi
F Raman (for T. Mahipal) for the Appellant.
G
Chandan Kumar (for Gopal Singh), Samii Ali Khan for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J. 1. The petitioner is
aggrieved by the order whereby his prayer for quashing the
order taking cognizance under Section 16(1 )(a) of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and issuing process has
H been declined.
RUPAK KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
571
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]
2. Short facts giving rise to the present special leave
A
petitions are that when the petitioner was posted as the
Superintendent of District Jail, Bihar Sharif, the Food Inspector
visited the jail premises and collected samples of various
materials including Haldi and Rice. Those articles were stored
for consumption of the prisoners. The samples so collected
were sent for examination and analysis and, according to the
report of the Public Analyst, Haldi and Rice were not found in
conformity with the prescribed standard and, therefore, held to
B
be adulterated. Accordingly, two separate prosecution reports
were submitted alleging commission of an offence under c
Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section
16(1)(a) of the Act and by order dated 18th of March, 2006
directed for issuance of process in both the cases. The 0
petitioner assailed both the orders in separate revision
applications filed before the Sessions Judge; but both were
dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred two separate
applications, being Criminal Miscellaneous No. 15527 of 2010
and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 15471 of 2010 under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court;
The High Court, by the orders impugned in the present special
leave petitions, has dismissed both the criminal miscellaneous
applications. It is in these circumstances the petitioner has filed
the present special leave petitions.
3. Leave granted.
4. Mr. Nagendra Rai, senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant raises a very short point. He submits that
E
F
the appellant at the relevant time was the Superintendent of Jail
G
and food items which have been found to be adulterated were
not stored for sale but were meant for consumption of the
inmates. He submits that according to the prosecution report,
these food items were not stored for sale and, therefore, the
allegations made do not come within the mischief of Section
H
572
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 3 S.C.R.
A 16(1)(a) of the Act.
5. We have bestowed our consideration to the submission
advanced and we find substance in the same. Section 7 of
the Act, inter alia, prohibits manufacture and sale of certain
8 articles of food, the same reads as follows:
c
D
E
F
G
"Section 7. Prohibitions of manufacture, sale, etc. of
certain articles of food. - No person shall himself or by
any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell
or distribute-
(i)
any adulterated food;
(ii)
any misbranded food;
(iii)
any article of food for the sale of which a licence
is prescribed, except in accordance with the
conditions of the licence;
(iv)
any article of food the sale of which is for the time
being prohibited by the Food (Health) Authority in
the interest of public health;
(v)
any article of food in contravention of any other
provision of this Act or of any rule made thereunder;
or
(vi)
any adulterant.
Explanation-For the purposes of this section, a person
shall be deemed to store any adulterated food or
misbranded food or any article of food referred to in clause
(iii) or clause (iv) or clause (v) if he stores such food for
the manufacture therefrom of any article of food for sale."
6. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is
evident that Section 7 prohibits a person to 'manufacture for
sale' or 'store' or 'sell' or 'distribute', inter alia, any adulterated
H food. Contravention of Section 7 by any person is punishable
RUPAK KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
57'3
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]
under Section 16 of the Act. Section 1 O of the Act talks about
A
the power of Food Inspector and under this Section, he is
empowered to take sample of any article of food from any
person selling such article. It is apt to reproduce Section 10(1)
and 10(2), which read as follows:
B
"Section 10. Powers of food inspectors. - (1) A Food
Inspector shall have power-
(a) to take samples of any article of food from-
(i)
any person selling such article;
(ii)
any person who is in the course of conveying,
delivering or preparing to deliver such article
to a purchaser or consignee;
c
(iii)
a consignee after delivery of any such article
D
to him; and
,
(b)
to send such sample for analysis to the
public analyst for th~ local area within which
such sample has been taken;
E
(c) with the previous approval of the Local
(Health) Authority having jurisdiction in the
local area concerned, or with the previous
approval of the Food (Health) Authority, to
prohibit the sale of any article of food in the
F
interest of public health.
Explanation-For the purposes of sub-clause (iii) of clause
(a), "consignee" does not include a person who purchases
or receives any article of food for his.own consumption.
G
(2) Any food inspector may enter and inspect any place
where any article of food is manufactured, or stored for
sale, or stored for the manufacture of any other article of
food for sale, or exposed or exhibited for sale or where
H
A
B
574
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2014] 3 S.C.R.
any adulterant is manufactured or kept, and take samples
of such article of food or adulterant for analysis:
Provided that no sample of any article of food, being
primary food, shall be taken under this sub-section if it is
not intended for sale as such food."
7. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it
clear that the Food Inspector has the power to take sample of
any article of food from any person selling such article under
sub-section (1) whereas sub-section (2) confers on him the
C power to enter and inspect any place where any article of food
is manufactured, stored or exposed for sale and take samples
of such articles of food for analysis. Section 16 provides for
penalties. Section 16(1)(a)(i) and 16(1)(a)(ii), which are relevant
D
E
F
G
for .the purpose read as follows:
"Section 16. Penalties. -(1) Subject to the provisions of
sub-section (IA) if any person-
(a) whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf,
imports into India or manufactures for sale or stores, sells
or distributes any article of food-
(i)
which is adulterated within the meaning of subclause (m) of clause (ia) of section 2 or misbranded
within the meaning of clause (ix) of that section or
the sale of which is prohibited under any provision
of this Act or any rule made thereunder or by an
order of the Food (Health) Authority;
(ii)
other than an article of food referred to in sub-clause
(i), in contravention of any of the provisions of this
Act or of any rule made thereunder ; or
xxx xxx
xxX'
8. According to this section any person, who by himself or
H by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or
RUPAK KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
575
~HANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]
stores or sells any adulterated article is liable to be punished.
A
9. In the present case, according to the prosecution, t~e
appellant, a Superintendent of Jail, had stored Rice and Haldi
and, therefore, his act comes within the mischief of Section 7
and 16 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid, what needs to be
8
decided is as to whether the expression 'store' as used in
Section 7 and Section 16 of the Act would mean storage
simplicitor or storage for sale. We have referred to the
provisions of Section 7, Section 10 and Section 16 of the Act
and from their conjoint reading, it will appear that the Act is
,....
intended to prohibit and penalise the sale of any adulterated
...,
article of food. In our opinion, the term 'store' shall take colour
from the context and the collocation in which it occurs in Section
7 and 16 of the Act. Applying the aforesaid principle, we are
of the opinion, that 'storage' of an adulterated article of food
other than for sale does not come within the mischief of Section D
16 of the Act. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of this
Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Laxmi
Narain Tandon, (1976) 1 SCC 546, this submission does not
need further elaboration. In the said case it has been held as
follows:
E
"14. From a conjoint reading of the above referred
provisions, it will be clear that the broad scheme of the Act
is to prohibit and penalise the sale, or import, manufacture,
storage or distribution for sale of any adulterated article F
of food. The terms "store" and "distribute" take their colour
from the context and the collocation of words in which they
occur in Sections 7 and 16. "Storage" or "distribution" of
an adulterated article of food for a purpose other than for
sale does not fall within the mischief of this G
section ..................... "
10. In the case in hand, it is not the allegation that the
appellant had stored Haldi and Rice for sale. Therefore, in our
opinion, the allegations made do not constitute any offence
H
576
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 3 S.C.R.
'
A and, hence, the prosecution of the appellant for an offence under
Section 16(1)(a) of the Act shall be an abuse of the process of
the Court.
11. In the result we allow these appeals, set aside the
8 impugned orders and quash the appellant's prosecution in both
the cases.
D.G.
Appeals allowed.