Ram Badal Vs. the State - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
criminal - adulteration - proviso to section 4 (1) of u.p. prevention of adulteration act, 1912 - fats and oils fraudulently added to ghee to increase its bulk and weight - ingredients added not injurious to health of public - addition not necessary for preparation of articles for sale - held, sale was to the prejudice of purchaser. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - 5. on behalf of the applicant it has, however, been contended that the prosecution has entirely failed to prove that the sale in question was 'to the prejudice of the purchaser' as laid down in the proviso to section 4; in other words, it has not been proved that the matter or ingredient, which had been used for adulteration was injurious to the health of the purchaser. in a case like this even if the matter or ingredient added to the article of food is not injurious to the health of the purchaser & if it is shown that the addition was required for the production or preparation of the article the sale would not be deemed 'to the prejudice of the purchaser,'but if, on the other hand, it is shown that the addition was made fraudulently to increase the bulk, weight or measure of the food or to conceal the inferior quality thereof the sale shall be deemed 'to the prejudice of the purchaser.orderp.l. bhargava, j.1. this application in revision is directed against an order of conviction, under section 4, u.p. prevention of adulteration act, (vi (6) of 1912), recorded by a magistrate of first class of gonda & upheld by the learned ses. j. of the same place.2. the applicant had sold 'ghee' which, on a chemical analysis, was found to be 'grossly adulterated.' the report of the public analyst shows that the sample of the 'ghee' sold by the applicant contained matter of ingredient, viz., fat & oil, which was different from & not of the same nature, substance or quality as 'ghee.'3. the sole point for consideration in this revision is whether the conviction is justified on a correct interpretation of section 4, u. p. prevention of adulteration act, which is in these terms:'4 (1) whoever sells to the prejudice of the purchaser any article of food or any drug which is notof the nature, substance or quality of the article or drug demanded by such purchaser, or sells or offers or exposes for sale or manufactures for sale any article of food or any drug which is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports; to be or which is sold or exposed for sale in a manner contrary to any regulations issued by the local govt. under sub-section (f), (g), or (h) or section 14 shall be punished for the first offence with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees & for a second or any subsequent offence with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or imprisonment of either description not exceeding three months of both: provided that no article shall be deemed to have been sold to the prejudice of the purchaser in the following cases, that is to say- (a) where any matter or ingredient not injurious to health has been added to the food or drug because the same is required for the production or preparation thereof as an article of commerce in a state fit for carriage or consumption, & not fradulently to increase the bulk, weight or measure of the food or drug or conceal the inferior quality thereof: (b) ..... (c) ..... (d) ..... (2) .....' 4. it would thus appear that in order to establish an offence, the penalty for, which has beers provided for in section 4, u.p. prevention of adulteration act, the prosecution must establish the sale 'to the prejudice of the purchaser' of any article of food, which is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by such purchaser. in this case the prosecution has succeeded proving that the applicant had sold the 'ghee' which was not of the nature, substance or quality of pure 'ghee', which was demanded by the purchaser.5. on behalf of the applicant it has, however, been contended that the prosecution has entirely failed to prove that the sale in question was 'to the prejudice of the purchaser' as laid down in the proviso to section 4; in other words, it has not been proved that the matter or ingredient, which had been used for adulteration was injurious to the health of the purchaser. undoubtedly it has not been shown that the fat or oil mixed with the 'ghee' sold was in any manner injurious to the health of the purchaser.6. the above contention entirely overlooks the wordings of clause (a) of the proviso. in a case like this even if the matter or ingredient added to the article of food is not injurious to the health of the purchaser & if it is shown that the addition was required for the production or preparation of the article the sale would not be deemed 'to the prejudice of the purchaser,' but if, on the other hand, it is shown that the addition was made fraudulently to increase the bulk, weight or measure of the food or to conceal the inferior quality thereof the sale shall be deemed 'to the prejudice of the purchaser.' in the case before us, it has been established beyond doubt that the addition of fats & oils which was apparently not injurious to the health of the purchaser, was, made with the object of increasing the bulk of the 'ghee' & its weight & this was obviously done fraudulently. it follows, therefore, that even according to the proviso to section 4, the sale was. 'to the prejudice of the purchaser,' & as such it was covered by section 4, u. p. prevention of adulteration act.7. in this view of the matter, the conviction of the applicant was fully justified & there is no reason whatsoever to interfere, with it or the sentence imposed, in this revision. the revision isaccordingly rejected.

Judgment:
ORDER

P.L. Bhargava, J.

1. This application in revision is directed against an order of conviction, under Section 4, U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act, (VI (6) of 1912), recorded by a Magistrate of First Class of Gonda & upheld by the learned Ses. J. of the same place.

2. The applicant had sold 'ghee' which, on a chemical analysis, was found to be 'grossly adulterated.' The report of the public Analyst shows that the sample of the 'ghee' sold by the applicant contained matter of ingredient, viz., fat & oil, which was different from & not of the same nature, substance or quality as 'ghee.'

3. The sole point for consideration in this revision is whether the conviction is justified on a correct interpretation of Section 4, U. P. Prevention of Adulteration Act, which is in these terms:

'4 (1) Whoever sells to the prejudice of the purchaser any article of food or any drug which is notof the nature, substance or quality of the article or drug demanded by such purchaser, or sells or offers or exposes for sale or manufactures for sale any article of food or any drug which is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports; to be or which is sold or exposed for sale in a manner contrary to any regulations issued by the local Govt. under Sub-section (f), (g), or (h) or Section 14 shall be punished for the first offence with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees & for a second or any subsequent offence with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or imprisonment of either description not exceeding three months of both:

Provided that no article shall be deemed to have been sold to the prejudice of the purchaser in the following cases, that is to say-

(a) where any matter or ingredient not injurious to health has been added to the food or drug because the same is required for the production or preparation thereof as an article of commerce in a state fit for carriage or consumption, & not fradulently to increase the bulk, weight or measure of the food or drug or conceal the inferior quality thereof:

(b) .....

(c) .....

(d) .....

(2) .....'

4. It would thus appear that in order to establish an offence, the penalty for, which has beers provided for in Section 4, U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act, the prosecution must establish the sale 'to the prejudice of the purchaser' of any article of food, which is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by such purchaser. In this case the prosecution has succeeded proving that the applicant had sold the 'ghee' which was not of the nature, substance or quality of pure 'ghee', which was demanded by the purchaser.

5. On behalf of the applicant it has, however, been contended that the prosecution has entirely failed to prove that the sale in question was 'to the prejudice of the purchaser' as laid down in the proviso to Section 4; in other words, it has not been proved that the matter or ingredient, which had been used for adulteration was injurious to the health of the purchaser. Undoubtedly it has not been shown that the fat or oil mixed with the 'ghee' sold was in any manner injurious to the health of the purchaser.

6. The above contention entirely overlooks the wordings of Clause (a) of the proviso. In a case like this even if the matter or ingredient added to the article of food is not injurious to the health of the purchaser & if it is shown that the addition was required for the production or preparation of the article the sale would not be deemed 'to the prejudice of the purchaser,' but if, on the other hand, it is shown that the addition was made fraudulently to increase the bulk, weight or measure of the food or to conceal the inferior quality thereof the sale shall be deemed 'to the prejudice of the purchaser.' In the case before us, it has been established beyond doubt that the addition of fats & oils which was apparently not injurious to the health of the purchaser, was, made with the object of increasing the bulk of the 'ghee' & its weight & this was obviously done fraudulently. It follows, therefore, that even according to the proviso to section 4, the sale was. 'to the prejudice of the purchaser,' & as such it was covered by Section 4, U. P. Prevention of Adulteration Act.

7. In this view of the matter, the conviction of the applicant was fully justified & there is no reason whatsoever to interfere, with it or the sentence imposed, in this revision. The revision isaccordingly rejected.