Summary
Based on the report of Public Analyst which showed that the sample of ice cream purchased by the Food Inspector, E'
Ward, Rajarampuri from the shop of the 4th respondent firm, the partners of which were respondents I to 3, contained 5.95% of milk fat, as against the minimum of 10% prescribed by paragraph A 11.02 08 of Appendix of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955, all the respondents were brought to trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kohlapur. The learned Magistrate thought that it was impossible to attain the standard of purity prescribed by the rules as ice cream was but a preparation of milk and the standard of purity prescribed for buffalo milk was but a minimum of 5% milk fat. He was, therefore, of the view that Rules 5 read with paragraph A. 11.02 08 of Appendix was impossible of compliance and, therefore, bad in law and thus acquitted all the respondents. On appeal by State, learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay dismissed the appeal in limine. Hence the State appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution.Allowing the appeal in part, the Court^HELD: 1:1. The circumstance that the standard of milk fat for buffalo milk is 5% should not render it impossible for ice cream to contain a minimum percentage of 10 of milk fat. There are several ways by which the higher percentage of milk fat in ice cream may be attained. The most elementary method is to heat the milk sufficiently to reduce the percentage of water and increase the percentage of milk fat. Another obvious method is to add cream containing a high percentage of milk fat separately to the milk before making ice cream out of it. [1055B-D]1: 2. Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 provides 1054that standard and quality of the various articles of food specified in Appendix thereto are to be defined in that Appendix. Paragraph A. 11.02.08 of Appendix prescribes a minimum standard of 10% milk fat in the case of ice cream, kulfi and chocolate ice cream. Section 2 (ia) (m) provides that an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if the quality or purity of article falls below the prescribed standard but which does not render it injurious to health.Therefore, the ice cream sold by the first respondent was adulterated within the meaning of section 2(ia) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955. [1055D-G]1: 3. In the circumstance, the 1st and the 4th respondents are, therefore liable to be convicted under section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Food Adulteration Act while respondents 2 and 3 are entitled to acquittal as there is nothing to indicate that they were in charge of or were in any way responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. [1055G-H, 1056A]1: 4. As to sentence, in view of the fact that the offence was committed quite some years ago, the offence happens to be the first offence and the Supreme Court was now interfering with an order of acquittal, the ends of justice will be met by the imposition of the minimum sentence of three months prescribed by the proviso section 16(1) of the Act and a fine of Rs. 2,000 each. [1056B-C]See the full content of this document
Extract
State Of Maharastra VS. Baburao Ravaji Mharulkar & Ors.
PETITIONER: STATE OF MAHARASTRA Vs.RESPONDENT: BABURAO RAVAJI MHARULKAR & ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT26/10/1984BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)SEN, A.P. (J)VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)CITATION: 1985 AIR 104 1985 SCR (1)1053 1984 SCC (4)...
See the full content of this document