We are of the considered view that once standards are laid down by the Legislature then those standards have to be followed. 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.
9. We may point out that this Court in M.V. Joshi v. M.U. Shimpi and Anr. MANU/SC/0151/1961 : AIR (48) 1961 SC 1494 held as follows:
7. ...Therefore, if the quality or purity of butter falls below the standard prescribed by the said Rule or its constituents are in excess of the prescribed limits of variability, it shall be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act. If the prescribed standard is not attained, the statute treats such butter, by fiction, as an adulterated food, though in fact it is not adulterated. To put it in other words, by reason of the fiction, it is not permissible for an Accused to prove that, though the standard prescribed is not attained, the Article of food is in fact not adulterated. The non-conformity with the standard prescribed makes such butter an adulterated food. Section 7 of the Act prohibits the manufacture, sale, storage or distribution of such food....
14. The Act does not make a distinction between cases coming under it on the basis of the degree of adulteration. It does not provide for aggravation of offence based on the extent of contamination. The offence and punishment are the same whether the adulteration is great or small. Food pollution, even if it be only to the slightest extent, if continued in practice, would adversely affect the health of every man, woman and child in the country. Hence even marginal or border line variations of the prescribed standards under the Act are matters of serious concern for all and as public interests are involved in them, the maxim, De Minimis Non Curat Lex. law does not concern itself about trifles, does not apply to them.
15. The standard fixed under the Act is one that is certain. If it is varied to any extent the certainty of a general standard would be replaced by the vagaries of a fluctuating standard. The disadvantages of the resulting unpredictability, uncertainty and impossibility of arriving at fair and consistent decisions, are great.
16. The Act does not provide for exemption of marginal or border line variations of the standard from the operation of the Act. In such circumstances to condone such variations on the ground that they are negligible is virtually to alter the standard itself fixed under the Act.
17. The standards of qualities of the articles have been fixed by the Government under the provisions of the Act after due deliberation and after consulting a committee of competent men. It is for them to give due allowance for probable errors before fixing a standard. They may have done it also. There is no reason to assume otherwise. Therefore the conclusion is that for an Article of food when a standard has been fixed under the Act it has to be observed in every detail.
11. In view of the above settled law, we hold that if the standards are not complied with, the Court is not justified in acquitting the Accused charged with adulteration only on the ground that the deficiency is marginal.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 1541 of 2019
Decided On: 04.10.2019
Raj Kumar Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
Citation: (2019) 9 SCC 427
