minal Appeal No 253 of 1968
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and Order dated April 12 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Govt
Appeal No 13 of 1965 and Criminal Govt
Appeal No 10 of 1966
B P Maheshwari and Sobhagmal Jain for the appellant
O P Rana for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mathew J
This appeal  by special leave is against a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad by which it restored the order of the Magistrate convicting the appellant of an offence under section 16 read with section 7
of the Act 37 of 1954 hereinafter called the Act and sentencing him to undergo one year s rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs 1000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months after reversing the order passed by the Sessions Judge in appeal acquitting him of the offence
On June 13 1963 Head Constable Baboo Khan was on patrol duty
He happened to come to the Chakki of one Abdul Razaaq
There he found a heap of Shakkar and some labourers mixing Shelkhari in it with spades
He went to the police station to inform the Station Officer about it but the Station Officer  was not there
He then met the Sanitary Inspector and informed him about what he saw at the Chakki
The Sanitary Inspector accompanied by the Food Inspector proceeded to the Chakki and there they found the labourers mixing Shelkhari with Shakkar
The stock of Shakkar belonged to the appellant
The Food Inspector purchased 1 12 seers of Shakkar from the appellant by way of sample after paying its price
He divided the sample into three parts gave one to the appellant and retained the other two with him
One of the samples retained was sent to the Public Analyst for examination
The Analyst found in his report dated July 11 1963 that the Shakkar contained 24 moisture 727 total sugar 647 sucrose 17 extraneous matter insoluble in water
According to him the extraneous matter insoluble in water total ash and ash insoluble in Hydrochloric acid exceeded by 15O 101 and 133 respectively as against the maximum prescribed standards of 20 60 and O5 respectively
On the basis of a complaint filed by the Food Inspector of the Municipal Board Saharanpur the Magistrate who tried the ap 352 pellant for an offence under section 16 read with section 7 of the Act came to the conclusion that the appellant had stored the Shakkar for sale that it was adulterated and that he was guilty of the offence and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid
The appellant filed an appeal against the order before the Sessions Judge
The Sessions Judge acquitted him of the offence for the reason that the prosecution had notproved that the Shakkar stored by the appellant was for sale
He said that the appellant was mixing extraneous matter with the Shakkar for converting it into Rab and as such it cannotbe said that the Shakkar was stored for sale by the appellant
He also said that no standard of quality was prescribed by therules framed under the Act for Shakkar that as an article of food Shakkar was neither gur  nor Jaggery  and that the sale of Shakkar to the Food Inspector by the appellant was under duress and was not a sale in the eye of the law
The Municipal Board filed an appeal against the order to the High Court
The High Court held that Shakkar is same as jaggery  that standard of quality has been prescribed by the rules framed under the Act for jaggery that the Shakkar in question was adulterated that the sample purchased by the Food Inspector for the purpose of analysis amounted to sale within the meaning of section 2 xiii of the Act that Food Inspector had power under the Act to get the sample even if the Shakkar was stored for being manufactured into Rab and not for sale and restored the order of the Magistrate convicting and sentencing the appellant as aforesaid
The first contention on behalf of the appellant was that Shakkar is not jaggery  and since no standard of quality has been prescribed for Shakkar under the rules formed under the Act the Shakkar was not adulterated
We find it difficult to accept the contention that Shakkar is not Jaggery
Para A0705 of Appendix B of the Rules reads Gur or jaggery means the product obtained by boiling or processing juice pressed out of sugar cane or extracted from palmyra palm date palm or coconut palm
It shall be free from substances deleterious to health and shall conform to the following analytical standards on dry weight basis itotal sugars not less than 90 per cent and sucrose not less than 70 per cent
ii extraneous matter insoluble in water not more than 2 per cent
3 5 3 iiitotal ash not more than 6 per cent
iv ash insoluble in hydrochloric acid HCI not more than O5 per cent
Gur or jaggery other than that of the liquid or semi liquid variety shall not contain more than 10 per cent moisture
 It is not disputed that Shakkar is a product obtained by boiling or processing _juice pressed from out of sugarcane and therefore it is clear that Shakkar is jaggery
But counsel for the appellant submitted that Appendix B of the Rules does not define jaggery but only gives the description of what jaggery  is and it cannot therefore be said that jaggery would comprehend all the varieties of products obtained by boiling or processing _juice pressed out of sugarcane
In other words counsel said that Appendix B to the Rules only describes what jaggery or gur is and that it does not define what jaggery or gur is
We are unable to accept the contention for the reason that jaggery or gur is defined as any product obtained by boiling or processing juice pressed out of sugarcane and so any product so obtained would be comprehend within the definition
Quite apart from this we find in Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary Revised Edition the meaning of jaggery  as  A coarse dark sugar made from palm sap or otherwise
Hindi Shakkar Sanskrit Sarkara
 It is therefore clear that Shakkar is jaggery  and the finding of the High Court on the basis of the report of the Analyst that the Shakkar has not conformed to the standard of quality prescribed for jaggery and therefore the food was adulterated was correct and has to be maintained
The second contention on behalf of the appellant was that he had kept the Shakkar for manufacturing Rab out of it
The contention in other words is that he had not kept the Shakkar for sale but kept it for manufacturing Rab out of it and therefore the conviction under section 16 read with section 7 of the Act was bad
We do not think that there is any substance in this contention either
Section 7 of the Act in so far as it is material Provides No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale or store sell or distribute 354 i any adulterated food Section 16 which imposes the punishment in so far as it is relevant says   16 1 If any person awhether by himself or by any other person on his behalf imports into India or manufactures for sale or stores sells or distributes any article of food i which is adulterated or misbranded or the sale of which is prohibited by the Food Health authority in the interest of public health The finding of the High Court is that the Shakkar was kept by the appellant for the purpose of sale and not for the purpose of manufacturing Rab out of it and that the attempt of the appellant was to sell the Shakkar as an article of food after mixing Shelkhari with it
We see no reason to think that the finding was wrong
But assuming that the finding was wrong and that the appellant kept the Shakkar was for sale but for manufacturing Rab out of it what follows  If Shakkar is an article of food it does not matter whether the appellant kept it for sale or for manufacturing Rab out of it provided the appellant has sold it
Arid a sale to the Food Inspector is a sale for the purpose of section 16 of the Act
In The Food Inspector Calicut Corporation vs Charukattil Gapalan and another this Court held that if any articles of food are sold by any person whether he be a dealer in them or not and if the food is adulterated he is liable to be convicted under section 16 read with section 7 of the Act
The respondents before this Court in that case were the manager and owner of a tea stall
The case against them was that they sold 600 grains of sugar to the appellant the Food Inspector for analysis and that the sugar was adulterated
The respondents pleaded that the sugar was not sold as such  in the tea stall and was only used for preparing tea which alone was sold
The plea was accepted by the District Magistrate and the respondents were acquitted
The acquittal was confirmed by the High Court
In appeal to this Court by the Food Inspector one of the arguments for the respondents was that they were not dealers in sugar and the sugar was not kept for sale and so they cannot be convicted under section 16 read with section 7 of the Act
The Court held inter alia that sale to a Food Inspector is a sale for the purpose of section 16 of the Act that the article of food sold to the Food Inspector need not have been taken from a larger quantity kept for sale and that the person by whom the article of food was sold to the Food Inspector need not be a dealer as such in the article
1 1971 2 SCC322
355 In that case it was assumed by this Court that the sugar was adulterated
Whether it was adulterated or not as a matter of fact this _Court proceeded on the assumption that it was adulterated
it that be so we see no reason to doubt the correctness of the ratio of the case
We think the High Court was right in its conclusion
We dismiss the appeal
GC Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The Food Inspector purchased 1 12 seers of Shakkar from the appellant after paying its price
He divided the sample into three parts gave one to the appellant and retained the other two with him
One of the samples retained  was sent to the Public Analyst for examination
The Public Analyst found it to be adulterated because of excess of extraneous matter
The food Inspector filed a complaint before the Magistrate who convicted the appellant for an offence under section 16 read with section 7 of the 
In appeal the Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant but in further appeal to High Court the appellant was again convicted
He appealed to this Court by special leave
The contentions on behalf of the appellant were  i that Shakkar is not jaggery and since no standard of quality has been prescribed for Shakkar under the rules framed under the Act the Shakkar was not adulterated ii that he had not kept the Shakkar for sale but for manufacturing Rab out of it and therefore the convicion under section 16 read with section 7 of The Act was bad
HELD  i Shakkar is a product obtained by following processing juce pressed from out of sugar cane and therefore in view of the definition of jaggery in para A0705 of Appendix B of the rules framed under the Act Shakkar is jaggery
In Chambers 20th Century Dictionary revised edition also the Hindi equivalent of jaggery given as Shakkar
Therefore the finding of the High Court on the basis of the report of the Analyst that the Shakkar did not conform to the standard of quality prescribed for jaggery and was thus adulterated was correct and had to be maintained
353 B F 2 The finding of the High Court was that the Shakkar was kept by the appellant for the purpose of sale and not for the purpose of manufacturing Rab out of it and that the attempt of the appellant was to sell the Shakkar as an article of food after mixing Shelkhari in it
There was no reason to think that the finding was wrong
But assuming that the finding was wrong and that the appellant kept the Shakkar not for sale but for manufacturing Rab out of it the appellant would still be guilty
If Shakkar is an article of food it does not matter whether the appellant kept it for sale or for manufacturing Rab out of it provided the appellant bad sold it
And a sale to the Food Inspector is a sale for the purpose of 161 of the Act
C D The Food Inspector Calicut Corporation v Charukanttil Gopalan and another  followed and applied
The appeal must accordingly be dismissed