Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Raj Kumar, who was convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling adulterated milk. On 30.10.1995, a Food Inspector collected a milk sample from the appellant. The Public Analyst found the milk fat content at 4.6% (within standard) but milk solids non-fat (MSNF) at 7.7% against the prescribed standard of 8.5%, rendering the milk adulterated. The appellant was prosecuted with consent of the Chief Medical Officer, convicted by the trial court, and the conviction was upheld by the Sessions Court and the High Court. The appellant raised several grounds: delay in analysis (sample collected 30.10.1995, analysed 02.11.1995), non-compliance with Section 13(2) of the Act (alleged failure to give opportunity to send sample to Central Food Laboratory), and that the deficiency was marginal and should be overlooked. The Supreme Court rejected all contentions. On delay, the Court noted the sample was preserved with formalin and the appellant did not summon the Public Analyst for cross-examination, following Shambhu Dayal vs. State of U.P. (1979) 1 SCC 202. On Section 13(2), the Court found that notice was sent on 18.02.1996 and the appellant did not exercise his option; the complaint's incompleteness did not affect his right. On marginal deficiency, the Court held that standards must be strictly complied with; even marginal deviation constitutes adulteration, and the maxim de minimis non curat lex does not apply. The Court also noted that several judgments cited by the appellant had been overruled. The Court upheld the conviction and sentence, declining to follow Santosh Kumar vs. Municipal Corporation (2000) 9 SCC 151 as per incuriam. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Adulteration - Standards - Marginal Deficiency - The court held that once standards are laid down by the Legislature, they must be followed; even marginal deviation from prescribed standard cannot be ignored and the article is deemed adulterated under Section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, even if not injurious to health. The maxim de minimis non curat lex does not apply to food adulteration cases. (Paras 8-11) B) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Section 13(2) - Right to Get Sample Analysed by Central Food Laboratory - The court held that the appellant was given notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on 18.02.1996 but did not exercise his option to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory; hence, he cannot complain of non-compliance. The complaint being incomplete did not affect his right. (Para 4) C) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Delay in Analysis - Effect - The court held that delay in analysing the sample (30.10.1995 to 02.11.1995) does not entitle the accused to benefit, especially when the sample was preserved with formalin, following Shambhu Dayal vs. State of U.P. (1979) 1 SCC 202. (Para 3) D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 433 - Commutation of Sentence - The court declined to follow Santosh Kumar vs. Municipal Corporation (2000) 9 SCC 151 as it was per incuriam, lacking discussion on the scope of Section 433 Cr.PC. (Para 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether marginal deficiency in milk solids non-fat (MSNF) below prescribed standard constitutes adulteration under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and whether the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt or acquittal on grounds of marginal variation, delay in analysis, or non-compliance with Section 13(2) of the Act.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling adulterated milk. The Court held that prescribed standards must be strictly followed and even marginal deviation constitutes adulteration. The Court declined to follow Santosh Kumar vs. Municipal Corporation as per incuriam.
Law Points
- Standards prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954 must be strictly complied with
- marginal deviation from prescribed standards does not justify acquittal
- de minimis non curat lex does not apply to food adulteration cases
- option under Section 13(2) of the Act must be exercised by accused
- delay in analysis not fatal if sample preserved with formalin
