iminal Appeal No 50 of 1969
Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 24 1968 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revisions No 235 of 1966
Nur ur din Ahmed section C Agarwal and Indiraj Jaisingh for the appellant
SP Mitra and G section Chatterjee for Sukumar Basu for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Jaganmohan Reddy J
This appeal is by certificate under article 1341 c of the Constitution
The appellant is the Manager of Sree Krishna Oil Mills Midnapore the proprietor of which was one Srilal Bajoria
Both these persons were tried jointly for an offence under section 71161ai of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act 
The proprietor Srilal Bajoria was acquitted but the appellant was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment
The offence in respect of which the appellant was charged was that he being the Manager of the Oil Mills for manufacturing mustard oil was responsible for the adulteration
On July 10 1964 at about II AM the appellant was going in a truck carrying 100 tins of mustard oil and was stopped by the Food Inspector Kharagpore Municipality
On being 847 questioned by the Food Inspector the appellant informed him that the oil which he was carrying was manufactured at Sree Krishna Oil Mills Midnapore
As the Food Inspector suspected that this oil may have been adulterated he took three samples according to the provisions of the Act
He sent one sample to the Public Analyst one he kept with himself and the third he gave to the appellant
The Public Analyst on examining the sample sent to him reported on August 5 1964 that saponification value of the oil was 1816 Iodine value 1072 and B R reading at 40 C was 601 and was of the opinion that the sample of mustard oil was adulterated vide Ext
After obtaining the sanction for prosecution from the Chairman of the Municipality the appellant was prosecuted before the Magistrate 1st Class Midnapore
He pleaded not guilty but on the evidence and the report of the Public Analyst he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid
An appeal to the Sessions Judge was without success
Thereafter the appellant filed a revision before the High Court and that was also dismissed
Before us the learned counsel for the appellant has urged similar points as were urged before the High Court namely i that the trial was vitiated for want of valid and legal sanction ii that the report of the Public Analyst was not a proper report in law and cannot form the basis of legal conviction and iii that the Public Analyst s report Was bad and incomplete for failure to carry out all the tests required under A 1706 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 and also for failure to disclose the data in the report
It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the sanction to prosecute the appellant was given by the Chairman of Kharagpore Municipality Shri K C Chaki on August 19 1964
This sanction did not show a that tile Chairman had applied his mind before giving the sanction b that it was valid as it was not granted by the Local Authority namely the Municipality and c that since the resolution of the Municipality had authorised the Chairman to give the sanction the new Chairman cannot avail himself of that authorisation as by that time there were fresh elections and a new Chairman was elected
Accordingly it is submitted that the sanction given by Mr Chaki was not a proper sanction
It appears to us that the challenge to the validity of the sanction is misconceived
As pointed out by the High Court section 51 of the Bengal Municipal Act 1932 enumerates the powers of the Chairman as under Save as hereinafter provided the Chairman shall for the transaction of the business connected with this Act or for the purpose of making any order authorised 848 thereby exercise all the powers vested by this Act in the Commissioners and whereby any other law power is vested in the Commissioners for any purpose the Chairman may transact any business or make any order authorised by that law in the exercise
of that power unless it is otherwise expressly provided in that law Section 20 of the Act provides for sanction of the Local Authority for prosecutions under the Act which includes a Municipality
Reading these two provisions together the Chairman of a Municipality duly authorised by the Municipality can accord sanction for prosecution of offences under the Act
In compliance with the aforesaid power under section 51 of the Bengal Municipal Act the Municipality by resolution dated July 28 1960 authorised the Chairman to perform all the functions and exercise the
powers of the Local Authority within the meaning of the  Exe
This power it may be noticed is not granted to any particular Chairman Eo nominee but is a general power exercisable by any Chairman for the time being of the Municipality
It is true that a fresh election of the Chairman was held after the resolution of the Municipality but that does not deprive the new Chairman of the power to grant sanction in under that resolution
The appellant in Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos
450  515 of 1970 seeks permission to allow him to adduce additional evidence to show that there was another resolution by the Kharagpore Municipality dated August 18 1965 which had given a fresh authorisation to the Chairman to grant sanctions for prosecution under the Act which would show that the previous authorisation was not really valid when sanction was given to prosecute the appellant
Apart from the fact that no case has been made out to adduce any fresh evidence the resolution itself has been passed after the sanction for the prosecution was
given and even that resolution as can be noticed is in similar terms to the earlier resolution passed by the Municipality
This subsequent resolution does not in any way indicate that the previous power could not be availed of by the Chairman who in fact had granted the sanction
At the most it may have been passed by way of abundant caution having regard to the contentions raised during the trial of the appellant
The High Court has pointed out and we think rightly that under section 152 of the Bengal Municipal Act the Municipality is a body corporate and it has perpetual succession if so any authorisation granted by it is not limited to the Chairman then in office but will continue unless otherwise rescinded
Nextly it has been strenuously urged before us on behalf of the appellant that the report of the Public Analyst is not a complete report in that out of the seven tests that he had to make under 849 A 1706 of Appendix B to the Rules he had only made three tests and secondly the report does not give the basis on which
the Public Analyst came to the conclusion that the sample of the mustard oil was adulterated
It is true that the Public Analyst in his report has only indicated the result of the three tests out of which two tests were as indicated in A 1706 while only one namely the saponification test was said to have exceeded the maximum on the strength of which the Public Analyst reported that the sample was adulterated
Omission to report on the other four tests does not in our view make the reporter ineffective or the report inconclusive
Even assuming that the other four tests are normal if the saponification test alone did not conform to the standards indicated in A 1706 of Appendix B to the Rules the sample cannot be said to have come up to the standard and therefore it is adulterated
An attempt was made to refer us to certain technical books and the decisions in Jagadish Chandra Jain vs Corporation of Calcutta1 Messrs Netai Chandra and Surendra Nath Dey vs Corporation of Calcutta2 and In re
Perumal  Co3 for the proposition that the standard prescribed by A 1706 in Appendix B to the Rules is not conclusive because in some places mustard can yield a higher reading
We cannot allow any fresh evidence to be used nor do we think that the decisions referred to even if they justify that contention can alter or vary the standard fixed in exercise of the powers conferred by the Act in Appendix B to the Rules
Section 3 of the Act authorises the Central Government to constitute a Committee called the Central Committee for Food Standards to advise the Central Government and the State Governments on matters arising out of the administration of the Act and to carry out the other functions assigned to it under the Act
Under section 23  1  b of the Act the Central Government may after consultation with the Committee and subject to the condition of previous publication make rules defining the standards of quality for and fixing the limits of variability permissible in respect of any article of food
 It is in exercise of this power that r 5 was made authorising standards of quality of the various articles of food specified in Appendix B to the Rules
In view of this provision any article of food which does not conform to the standards specified in Appendix B to the Rules which under section 2 1 of the Act is said to be adulterated because the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities which are in excess of the prescribed limits of variability
 The contention that the standards cannot be conformed to by an ordinary vendor who is not versed in the technicalities is also 1 3 AIR 1943 Mad
2 AIR 1967 Cal
65 850 not of significance
In this regard it was pointed out by Shah J as he then was speaking for this Court in Andhra Pradesh Grain and Seed Merchants Association and others vs Union of India  Anr
1  The various items in the Schedule setting out standards of quality use technical expressions with which an ordinary retail dealer may not be familiar and also set out percentages of components which the dealer with the means at his command cannot verify
But by section 3 the Central Government has to set up the Central Committee for Food Standards to advise the Central and the State Governments on matters arising out of the administration of the Act  
Under section 23  1  b the Central Government makes rules prescribing the standards of quality and the limits of variability permissible in any article of food
The rules are made after consultation with the Committee for Food Standards
The standards set out in the Appendix to the Rules are prescribed after consultation with the Committee for Standards
 It appears to us therefore that standards having been fixed as aforesaid any person who deals in articles of food which do not confirm to them contravenes the provisions of the Act and is liable to punishment thereunder
It was again urged that the Public Analyst had not given the basis for his conclusion that the saponification test did not conform to the standards specified in A 1706 of Appendix B to the Rules which contention is also not tenable
Under section 13 5 of the Act any document purporting to be a report signed by a Public Analyst unless it has been superseded under sub section
3 or any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceeding under the Act or under sections 272 to 276 of the Indian Penal Code
Under the proviso to that sub section any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein
If the report of the Public Analyst was not satisfactory it was open to the appellant to have made an application for the sample which was in his possession to be sent to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for examination
If he had made such an application and sent the sample under section 13 2 the certificate granted by the 1  851 Director of the Central Food Laboratory would have superseded the report given by the Public Analyst
This he has not done
In the circumstances he has been properly convicted
Lastly it has to be considered whether the sentence awarded in the circumstances requires any modification
It was urged that the prosecution of the appellant was prior to the amendment of sub section
1 of section 16 of the with effect from March 1 1965 under which the sentence has to be a minimum of six months rigorous imprisonment but there is no such injunction under the unamended section and yet the maximum sentence has been awarded to the appellant which is harsh for a first offender
Offences under the Act being antisocial crimes affecting the health and well being of our people the Legislature having regard to the trend of courts to impose in most cases only fines or where a sentence of imprisonment was passed a light sentence was awarded even in cases where a severe sentence was called for a more drastic step was taken by it in prescribing a minimum sentence and a minimum fine to be imposed even for a first offence
An exception was however made in cases falling under sub cl
i of cl
a of section 161 and in respect of an article of food which was considered to be adulterated under section 2 cl
ii or misbranded under section 2 cl
ix or for an offence under sub clause ii of clause a of section 161 in which case the Court is given the discretion for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned to award a lesser sentence than six months or impose a fine lesser than one thousand rupees or of both lesser than the minimum prescribed
If for the offence of which the appellant is convicted even under the amended section a lesser sentence can be awarded if there were adequate and special reasons it would be much more so under the unamended section
The reasons for the Legislature to make the exception is not that the offences specified are not considered to be serious but the gravity of the offence having regard to its nature can be less if there are any special or adequate reasons
In our view though offences for adulteration of food must be severely dealt with no doubt depending on the facts of each case which cannot be considered as precedents in other cases in this case having regard to the fact that the appellant has been on bail since 1964 for a period of nearly seven years and also because not only the mustard oil sample satisfied all the tests except one but the main person concerned in the manufacture of the said oil has been acquitted interests of justice would be served if the sentence of one year is reduced to two months rigorous imprisonment and the appellant is further directed to pay a fine of 852 Rs 1000 failing which to be directed to undergo a further term of rigorous imprisonment for one month
We accordingly so direct
Subject to this modification the appeal and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos 450 and 515 of 1970 are dismissed
KBN Appeal and petitions dismissed


Summary:
The appellant manager of an Oil Mill was convicted under section 7i161ai of the  and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment
His appeal to the Sessions Judge was without success and a revision to the High Court was also dismissed
In appeal to this Court it was contended that i the sanction for prosecution did not show a that the Chairman of the Muni cipality had applied his mind before giving the sanction b that it was invalid since it was not granted by the local authority namely the municipality and e that since the resolution of the Municipality had authorised the Chairman to give the sanction the new Chairman could not avail himself of that authorisation and therefore
the trial was vitiated for want of valid and legal sanction ii the report of the Public Analyst was not a proper report in law and was bad and incomplete for failure to carry out all the tests required under A 1706 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 and also for failure to disclose the data in the report and iv the sentence awarded was harsh for a first offender
Reducing the sentence and dismissing the appeal HELD  i Reading sections 20 and 51 of the Bengal Municipal Act 1932 the Chairman of a municipality duly authorised by the municipality can accord sanction for prosecution of offences under the Act
The resolution of the Municipality authorising the Chairman to perform all the functions and exercise the powers of the local authority within the meaning of the  is not to grant power to any particular Chairman eo nominee but is a general power exercisable by any Chairman for the time being of the municipality
The High Court has rightly pointed out that under section 152 of the Bengal Municipality Act the Municipality is a body corporate and it has perpetual succession and as such any authorisation granted by it is not limited to the Chairman then in office but will continue unless rescinded
848 D G H ii It is
true that the Public Analyst in his report has only indicated the result of the three tests out of which two tests were as indicated in A 1706 while only one namely the saponification test was said to have exceeded the maximum on the strength of which the Public Analyst reported that the sample was adulterated
Omission toreport on the other four tests does not make the report ineffective or inconclusive
Even assuming that the other four tests are normal if the saponification test alone did not conform to the standards indicated in A 1706 of Appendix B to the Rules the sample cannot be said to have come up to the standard and therefore it is adulterated
It is in exercise of the powers conferred by section 23 i b that rule 5 was made authorising standards of quality of 846 the various articles of food specified in Appendix B to the Rules
Standards having been fixed any person who deals in articles of food which do not conform to them contravenes the provisions of the Act and is liable to punishment thereunder
849 A C 850 E Andhra Pradesh Grain and Seed Merchants Association and others vs Union of India  Anr AIR  referred to
If the report of the Public Analyst was not satisfactory it was open to the appellant to make an application for sending the sample which was in his possession to the Director
If he had made such an application and sent the sample under section 132 the certificate granted by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory would have superseded the report given by the Public Analyst
This has not been done
In the circumstances he has been properly convicted
850 H iv The reason for the legislature to makeexception to the minimum of six months rigorous imprisonment prescribedunder section 161 is not that the offences specified are not considered to be serious but the gravity of the offences having regard to its nature can be less if there are any special or adequate reasons
In the present case having regard to the fact that the appellant has been on bail since 1964 for a period of nearly seven years and also because not only the oil sample satisfied all the tests except one but the main person concerned in the manufacture of the oil has been acquitted interests of justice would be served if the sentence of one year is reduced to two months rigorous imprisonment and the appellant is further directed to pay a fine of Rs 1000 
851 F H