Case Analysis: M. V. Krishnan Nambissan vs State Of Kerala
Case Details
Case name: M. V. Krishnan Nambissan vs State Of Kerala
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: M. Hidayatullah, R.S. Bachawat, Subba Rao J.
Date of decision: 18 January 1966
Citation / citations: 1966 AIR 1676, 1966 SCR (3) 373
Case number / petition number: Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 1964; Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 1962
Neutral citation: 1966 SCR (3) 373
Proceeding type: Criminal Appeal
Source court or forum: Kerala High Court
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, M. V. Krishnan Nambissan, managed the Palghat depot of Messrs. Nambissan’s D. V. Dairy Farm. On 20 July 1961 a food inspector purchased two nazhies of “skimmed thick butter‑milk” from the depot’s salesman and sent the sample to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst reported a solids‑not‑fat (SNF) content of 7.5 per cent, compared with the 8.5 per cent prescribed for curd, and opined that the sample contained at least 2 per cent added water. A later analysis by the Central Food Analyst recorded an SNF content of 6.4 per cent.
A complaint was filed before the Court of the District Magistrate, Palghat, charging the appellant under section 16(1)(a)(i) and section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, read with rule 44 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, for exposing for sale butter‑milk adulterated with water. The District Magistrate examined the evidence, noted that Appendix B of the Rules prescribed standards for milk, skimmed milk and curd but contained no standard for butter‑milk, and consequently acquitted the appellant.
The State appealed to the Kerala High Court. The High Court held that the standard fixed for curd (8.5 per cent SNF) applied to butter‑milk, reasoning that butter‑milk was “curd from which butter had been extracted.” Relying on the Central Food Analyst’s figure of 6.4 per cent, the High Court convicted the appellant, imposed a fine of Rs 100 and, in default, ordered simple imprisonment for one month.
The appellant filed a criminal appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 1964) before the Supreme Court of India, seeking a certificate of appeal against the High Court’s judgment. The appeal was heard by a bench comprising Justices M. Hidayatullah, R. S. Bachawat and Subba Rao J., the latter delivering the judgment.
Issues, Contentions and Controversy
The Court was called upon to determine whether the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, prescribed any quantitative standard of solids‑not‑fat for the product described as “butter‑milk,” and, accordingly, whether the appellant could be held guilty of an offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) and section 7 of the Act for selling butter‑milk that allegedly contained water in excess of a prescribed limit.
The State contended that butter‑milk, being essentially curd from which butter had been removed, should be subject to the same 8.5 per cent SNF standard fixed for curd; therefore the appellant’s product, showing a lower SNF percentage, constituted an adulterated article.
The appellant contended that the Rules prescribed specific SNF percentages only for milk, skimmed milk and curd, and that no such percentage was fixed for butter‑milk. He argued that, in the absence of an expressly prescribed standard, the charge could not be sustained and the High Court had erred in importing the curd standard by implication.
Statutory Framework and Legal Principles
The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, defined an article as adulterated under section 2(i)(1) when its quality fell below a prescribed standard or when its constituents exceeded prescribed limits. Section 7 prohibited the manufacturing, selling or distribution of any adulterated food, and section 16 prescribed penal consequences for contravening any provision of the Act or any rule made thereunder. Section 23 empowered the government to make rules defining standards of quality. Under the Rules, rule 5 incorporated the standards set out in Appendix B, which listed definitions and SNF percentages for various milk products. Appendix B expressly prescribed SNF standards for milk, skimmed milk and curd, but the definition of “butter‑milk” was limited to “the product obtained after removal of butter from curds by churning or otherwise” and contained no SNF percentage.
The Court applied the principle that penal statutes must be strictly construed and that liability cannot be imposed unless the legislature has unambiguously prescribed a standard for the specific article alleged to be adulterated.
Court’s Reasoning and Application of Law
The Court examined whether a “prescribed standard” existed for butter‑milk within Appendix B of the Rules. It observed that wherever the rule‑making authority intended to fix a quantitative standard, the standard was expressly stated; no such statement existed for butter‑milk. The Court rejected the High Court’s inference that the curd standard automatically applied to butter‑milk, holding that such an implication would amount to reading a statutory provision into the Rules by implication, which is impermissible in a criminal context.
Applying the test for the existence of a prescribed standard, the Court found that the essential element of the offence—sale of an article in contravention of a prescribed standard—was absent. Consequently, the allegation that the appellant had added water beyond a statutory limit could not be sustained. The Court affirmed the factual assessment of the District Magistrate that no standard applied to butter‑milk and that the appellant therefore could not be convicted under sections 16(1)(a)(i) and 7.
Final Relief and Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Kerala High Court, restored the acquittal pronounced by the District Magistrate, and directed that any fine already collected be refunded to the appellant. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was reversed on the ground that the Rules did not prescribe any quantitative standard for butter‑milk, rendering the statutory element of the offence unsatisfied.