P L D 1952 Lahore 290 (PLP)

S. A. RAHMAN, J.‑On the 2nd of May 1951, some forty -four bags of turmeric weighing about ninety‑five maunds were taken possession of, from the premises of the Lahore Grinding Mills, outside Akbari Gate, Lahore: The accused‑respondents are proprietors of that mill. A sample of the turmeric was taken by a Food Inspector of the Lahore Corporation from one of the bags and sent for examination to the Provincial Public Analyst. The report of that officer established that the sample was adulterated with foreign starch (rice, pulse) and dye stuff to the extent of about 95 per cent. In the opinion of the Analyst the sample was injurious to health and unfit for human con sumption. On these facts, the respondents were prosecuted for an offence under section 13 of the Punjab Pure Food Act, 1929 as amended by Act VII of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act): They were convicted by the trial Magistrate and sen tenced to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment each and in addition to pay a fine of Rs. 500 or in default to suffer one 'and a half months' rigorous imprisonment further. The forty‑four bags of turmeric were ordered to be destroyed. The convicts appealed and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, acquitted them of the offence by order dated the 18th June 1951. The Crown has appealed against the acquittal. The defence of the respondents in the trial Court was that they merely acted as millers in order to grind the turmeric that was seized and it was not lying at their premises for pur poses of sale. This Alga was given effect to by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Mr. Muhammad Sharif on behalf of the Crown has contested the finding of the learned judge on the point. Learned counsel for the Crown relied on clauses (a) and (g), subsection (1) of section 13 and argued that the act of the accused‑respondents was covered by these clauses. They may be reproduced below : ‑ "(1) No person shall‑ (a) sell any adulterated food unless he has complied with such rules as may be prescribed in this behalf ; (g) sell any food which is unfit for human consumption on the same premises on which he sells food fit for human ' consumption." It will be noticed that clause (a) refers to prescribed rules. The relevant rules are Nos. 18 and 19 of the Punjab Pure Food Rules 1913. Rule 18 requires that on every package con taining adulterated food exposed for sale, whether open or closed, there shall be exposed a label in Form B appended to the rules. Every such label, it is laid down, shall contain the name of the food and the name and the maximum amount of adulterant present therein, in black letters on a white ground, in such manner as to be clearly visible to the purchaser and shall measure at least four inches by three inches. Rule 19 merely concerns the language in which such a label may be written and is not really material for our present purpose. Learned counsel then invited our attention to section 3 of the Act which inter alia defines the words "Food", "Public Analyst" and "Sale". The definition of "food" is comprehensive and includes every article used for food or drink by man other than a drug and any article which enters into the composition or is used in the preparation of any such article and also includes flavouring and colouring matters and condiments. Turmeric would obviously be a "food" as defined in the Act. There is also no question that the officer who had examined the stuff in this case was a "Public analyst" within the meaning of the Act and that under subsection (5) of section 11 of the Act, his certificate may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein, for the purposes of this case. The word "Sale" is defined in section 3 in the following terms :‑ " 'Sale' means a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised, or part paid or part promised, and includes barter, or offering or attempting to sell, or receiving for sale, or having in possession for sale, or exposing for sale or sending or delivering for sale or causing or allowing to be sold, offered, or exposed for sale, and refers only to sale for human consumption or use". The question is whether it has been proved on the evidence on record that the turmeric, seized in this case from the possession of the accused, was kept by the accused or exposed by them for sale etc. There were only two witnesses examined by the prosecution in this case. One was the Food Inspector and the other, the Municipal Health Officer. None of them had evidently visited the accused's premises before. They did not know them previ ously. The Food Inspector got the printed certificate Exh. P/A in English, signed by the two accused, which apparently ack nowledges that the stuff in question was kept for sale. It is significant, however, that the accused signed this document in Urdu only. There is no evidence on the file to show that they were conversant with English. The Food Inspector does say that the contents of this document were read over and explained to them before they signed it, but this is open to doubt: The certificate is merely meant as a record of the‑ fact that a sample had been taken for analysis by the Public Analyst on payment. The evidence shows that the respondents refused to accept any payment. Their plea in Court was that their only responsibility towards the turmeric was to grind it as millers and they had nothing to do with its eventual disposal. They led defence evidence to establish their plea. The defence witnesses were un animous in saying that the respondents never sold turmeric, but that they ground it for any person bringing the stuff to their mill. One of the witnesses even claimed the seized stuff as his own and stated that he had brought it to be ground. It is noteworthy also in this connection that the Municipal Health Officer said nothing about the contents of Exhibit P. A. having been explained to the accused before they signed it. In the circumstances we are not prepared to rely on the admission contained in this document to the effect that the stuff had been kept for sale. The oral evidence recorded in this case points to the contrary. It would have been easy enough for the prosecution to adduce evidence to show that the respondents had been selling turmeric on previous occa sions. In the absence of any such evidence no presumption arises that the turmeric found on their premises was kept there for sale or was exposed for sale, in the circumstances of the present case. That the turmeric was "adulterated" within the meaning of section 4 of the Act is not disputed before us. Learned counsel for the Crown strongly relied on the provisions of section 12 of the Act and in particular on clause (b) of subsection (1) of this section and attempted to argue that it should be presumed that the turmeric was kept for sale. This clause provides that in any prosecution under the Act, the Court may presume that any food found in the possession of a person, who is in the habit of manufacturing a like food for sale, is in his possession for purposes of sale. Mr. Muhammad Sharif contended that the grinding of turmeric into powder by the respondents amounted to "manufacturing food for sale", as it was obvious that eventually this turmeric would be sold either by the accused themselves or by some other persons, and consequently it may be presumed that the accused were in possession of it for purposes of sale. This, in our opinion, is a forced interpretation of the language of clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 12, The clause is obviously intended to apply to persons who manufacture a food and sell it themselves and not to persons like the present accused who merely act as millers. The interpretation contended for on behalf of the Crown would lead to absurd results. For instance, if a person brings adulteraed turmeric to a miller to be ground into powder, with the intention of eventually selling it, that person would be guilty of no offence provided he complies with the provisions of rules 18 and 19 and puts the requisite labels on the packages containing the turmeric, indicating the amount of adulteratian in the stuff. Such an act would be taken out of the purview of clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 13. This would mean that the person who is actually responsible for selling the adulterated stuff would escape all punishment, but the innocent miller would be held to be guilty of an offence. Such an anomalous result could not have been within the contemplation of the Legislature. We have no hesitation in rejecting the proposed interpretation as unreasonable and far‑fetched. Mr. Muhammad Sharif drew our attention to two authorities of this Court reported as Diwan Singh v. Emperor A I R 1937 Lah. 702 and Emperor v. Prem Singh A I R 1944 Lah. 420. In the former case it was held by Blacker J. that a Hadwai found in possession of ghee, below standard, comes within the mischief of section 12, Punjab Pure Food Act, although he does not sell it as such but sells sweetmeats. would be in accord with clause (a) of subsection (1:) section 12 of the Act, but has no relevancy to the question under consideration. In the latter authority, a Division Bench of this Court laid down that once a commission agent receives for sale or has in his possession for sale or exposes for sale or sends or delivers for sale or causes or allows to be sold, offers or exposes for sale, ghee, which is proved to be adulterated, he commits an offence under the Act. It was pointed out that the definition of "sale" read with the expla nation in section 16 which relates to sales by agents or servants, was so widely worded that it covered not only actual sale but almost any transaction which a seller, be he a retailer or a commission agent, undertook, provided only that the ghee was intended for sale for human consumption or use. This ruling too, in our opinion, has no bearing on the present case. It has not been proved satisfactorily that the turmeric found on the premises of the accused‑respondents was kept there for sale. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the order of acquittal and dismiss the appeal. A. H. Appeal dismissed.