Food adulteration charges cannot be dropped, merely because there was a marginal deficiency

Rohit Pradhan | 5^th October 2019

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1541 OF 2019

Background:

When sample was taken from the accused, the Milk Fat was 4.6% and Milk Solid Non Fat was 7.7% which is not up-to the standards, that is 8.5%.

Contention:

There was a very minimal deviation from the settled food standard, when the sample was collected, due to which the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.

Held:

Once the standards have been made by the legislation, it has to be maintained.

“In items like milk which is a primary food, under the Act, it is not necessary to also prove that the food item had become unfit for human consumption or injurious to health. In cases of food coming under the Act, it is not required to prove that article of food was injurious to health. In this case, the only question to be determined is whether the article complies with the standards laid down or not? If it fails to comply with the standards then it will have to be treated as an adulterated article even if it is not rendered injurious to health. Even marginal deviation from the prescribed standard cannot be ignored.”

Case referred:

State of Kerala v. Parameswaran Pillai Vasudevan Nair, where the court held that Act doesn’t provide for exemptions if there is a marginal deviation from the set standard.

Contention:

It was prayed before the Court to exercise powers under Article 142 of the Constitution as the cause of action arose 20 years back.

Held:

Court rejected the contention and held that,

“We are clearly of the view that the power under Article 142 cannot be exercised against the specific provision of law. Section 16(1)(a) of the Act lays down a minimum sentence of six months. Considering the bane of adulteration and the deleterious effect of adulteration and substandard food on the health of the citizens (especially children when milk is involved), the Legislature provided a minimum sentence of six months. Passage of time can be no excuse to award a sentence lower than the minimum.”

“Furthermore, the power under Article 142, in our considered view, cannot be used in total violation of the law. When a minimum sentence is prescribed by law, this Court cannot, in exercise of its power under Article 142, pass an order totally contrary to law. If such power could be used in a food adulteration case to impose a sentence lower than the minimum prescribed, then even in cases of murder and rape, this Court applying the same principles could impose a sentence less than the minimum. This, in our opinion, is not the purpose of Article 142. We have no doubt in our mind that powers under Article 142 cannot be exercised in such a manner that they make a mockery of the law itself.”

Contention:

It was requested to the Court to commute the sentence under Section 433 CrPC.

Case referred:

Santosh Kumar v. Municipal Corporation.

Held:

Court rejected the plea and held that,

“A bare perusal of Section 433 of Cr.PC shows that the powers under Section 433 can only be exercised by the appropriate Government. These powers cannot be exercised by any court including this Court. At best, the court can recommend to the State Government that such power may be exercised but the power of the appropriate Government cannot be usurped by the courts and the Government cannot be directed to pass ‘formal compliance order’. We are, therefore, not inclined to pass a similar order because that is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.”