Case Analysis: M/S. Baburally Sardar and Another v. Corporation of Calcutta
Case Details
Case name: M/S. Baburally Sardar and Another v. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: J.R. Mudholkar, Satyanarayana Raju, R.S. Bachawat
Date of decision: 29 November 1965
Citation / citations: 1966 AIR 1569; 1966 SCR (2) 815
Case number / petition number: Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 1963; Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 1962
Proceeding type: Criminal Appeal
Source court or forum: Supreme Court of India
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Factual and Procedural Background
On 1 June 1960 a Food Inspector of the Corporation of Calcutta visited the shop of M/s Baburally Sardar in Steward Hogg Market, Calcutta, where Abdul Razzak was in charge. The Inspector seized samples of a product marketed as “Comela Brand condensed milk” and forwarded one sample to the Public Analyst. The Analyst reported that the milk‑fat content of the sample was 3.4 per cent. The prescribed standard for condensed milk, as defined in Appendix B to the Rules under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, required at least 9 per cent fat and at least 31 per cent milk solids. Because the tested sample fell short of the fat requirement, the product was deemed adulterated.
A complaint was filed before the Municipal Magistrate and the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, naming the firm and five other persons, including Abdul Razzak, as accused. One accused, Mohd Yasin, did not appear and was reported as mentally unfit; the remaining accused pleaded not guilty and were acquitted by the magistrate.
The Corporation of Calcutta appealed the acquittal under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Calcutta High Court set aside the acquittal of the two appellants, M/s Baburally Sardar and Abdul Razzak, while upholding the acquittal of the other accused, and convicted the appellants under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, imposing a fine of Rs 2,000 on each.
The appellants contended that they could rely on the defence under section 19(2) of the Act. They claimed that the tins of condensed milk had been purchased on 3 May 1960 from Messrs S. Choudhury Brothers under a sales document, that they had demanded a written warranty which the supplier allegedly refused to give, and that the label on the tins and the cash memo constituted a warranty. The label read, in part, “Full Cream sweetened condensed milk…”, and the cash memo listed only the quantity, description, rate and amount, without any warranty statement.
The Corporation argued that the appellants had no written warranty in the prescribed form and that the label and cash memo did not satisfy the statutory warranty requirement. The High Court’s conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of India, which dismissed the appeal.
Issues, Contentions and Controversy
The Court was called upon to determine:
1. Whether the condensed milk stored and sold by the appellants was adulterated within the meaning of section 2(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, by failing to meet the prescribed standard of at least 9 per cent fat.
2. Whether the appellants could avail themselves of the defence under section 19(2) of the Act, which required proof of a written warranty in the prescribed form, absence of reason to believe the product was non‑conforming, and sale in the same state as purchased.
3. Whether the label affixed to the tins or the cash memo satisfied the warranty requirement prescribed by Rule 12‑A and the proviso to section 19(2).
4. Whether the High Court’s decision to set aside the acquittal and uphold the conviction was legally sustainable.
The appellants contended that the description “Full Cream” on the label and the cash memo together amounted to a warranty, thereby invoking the defence under section 19(2). The Corporation maintained that no written warranty in Form 6‑A had been obtained, that the label did not contain an express warranty, and that the cash memo lacked any warranty clause. The controversy therefore centred on the interpretation of the statutory warranty requirement and its applicability to the facts.
Statutory Framework and Legal Principles
Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 prescribed punishment for any person who stores or sells any article of food in contravention of the Act or its rules. Section 2(i) defined “adulterated” to include any article of food whose quality or purity fell below the prescribed standard. Section 19(1) barred a vendor from claiming ignorance of the nature, substance or quality of the food sold. Section 19(2) provided a defence to a vendor who proved that:
(a) the article was purchased with a written warranty in the form prescribed by Rule 12‑A (Form 6‑A);
(b) the vendor had no reason to believe at the time of sale that the food was not of the nature, substance and quality demanded; and
(c) the vendor sold the article in the same state as it was purchased, subject to the procedural requirement of giving notice to the food inspector and the supplier.
Rule 12‑A required a trader to deliver a warranty in Form 6‑A when demanded. Rule 42‑B(b) prescribed the label to be placed on sweetened condensed milk. Appendix B, clause A.11.07, stipulated that condensed milk must contain at least 31 per cent milk solids of which at least 9 per cent shall be fat. The Code of Criminal Procedure, section 417, governed the appeal against an order of acquittal.
Court’s Reasoning and Application of Law
The Court first examined the definition of “adulterated” under section 2(i). It held that an article of food is deemed adulterated when its quality falls below the standard prescribed in the Rules. The Public Analyst’s report that the milk‑fat content of the sampled condensed milk was 3.4 per cent, well below the required 9 per cent, satisfied the element of adulteration. Consequently, the Court concluded that the condensed milk stored by the appellants was adulterated.
Turning to the defence under section 19(2), the Court applied the three‑part test. It found that the appellants had not produced a written warranty in Form 6‑A, nor had they submitted any copy of a warranty to the food inspector as required by the proviso. The Court examined the label and observed that, although it described the product as “Full Cream sweetened condensed milk,” it did not contain an express warranty certifying that the article was of the nature, substance and quality demanded by the purchaser, nor did it conform to the format prescribed by Rule 42‑B(b). The cash memo listed only transactional details and lacked any warranty clause. Accordingly, the Court held that the statutory warranty requirement was not met.
Because the warranty requirement was unsatisfied, the Court determined that the defence under section 19(2) was unavailable to the appellants. Having established both the adulteration of the product and the inapplicability of the defence, the Court affirmed the conviction under section 16(1)(a)(i) and rejected the appeal.
Final Relief and Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/s Baburally Sardar and Abdul Razzak. It upheld the conviction of each appellant under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and confirmed the fine of Rs 2,000 imposed by the Calcutta High Court. No relief was granted to the appellants; the conviction and monetary penalty remained in force. The decision clarified that a vendor may escape liability under section 19(2) only by producing a written warranty in the prescribed form (or an equivalent warranty on the label or cash memo) and by complying with the procedural notice requirements. In the absence of such a warranty, the defence could not be invoked, and the conviction for selling adulterated condensed milk stood affirmed.