Case Analysis: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kartar Singh
Case Details
Case name: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kartar Singh
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, A.K. Sarkar, K.N. Wanchoo, K.C. Das Gupta
Date of decision: 06 February 1964
Citation / citations: 1964 AIR 1135, 1964 SCR (6) 679
Case number / petition number: Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 1962, Criminal Revision No. 1579 of 1961
Proceeding type: Criminal Appeal
Source court or forum: Supreme Court of India
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Factual and Procedural Background
Kartar Singh operated a shop at Haldwani where he sold ghee. On 19 March 1960 a Food Inspector seized a quantity of ghee from his shop, sealed three samples in Singh’s presence and recorded the purchase as “pahadi ghee”. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst of Uttar Pradesh, who reported a Reichert value of 22.5, below the minimum of 28 prescribed for Uttar Pradesh, and noted the presence of vegetable fat. A second sample was examined by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, who reported a Reichert value of 21.7 and reached the same conclusion of adulteration.
Based on these reports the Medical Officer of Health sanctioned prosecution and a complaint was filed before a Magistrate‑First Class. Singh pleaded not guilty and advanced two defences: (i) that the ghee had been purchased from Jodhpur, where the applicable minimum Reichert value was 21; and (ii) that the decision in State v. Malik Ram, which allowed a lower standard for “pahadi” ghee from hill districts, applied. The Magistrate rejected both defences, held that the ghee was adulterated, convicted Singh and sentenced him to six months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 500, with a default term of three months.
Singh appealed to the Sessions Judge, Kumaon, who affirmed the conviction but reduced the imprisonment to one month and the fine to Rs 200. Singh then filed a criminal revision before the Allahabad High Court under sections 435 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court accepted Singh’s contention that the standards prescribed in the Food Adulteration Rules were unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, held that any vendor could satisfy the minimum standard applicable to any area, and consequently acquitted him.
The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a criminal appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 1962) before the Supreme Court of India, seeking a certificate of fitness under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution to challenge the High Court’s order. The parties before the Supreme Court were the State (prosecuting) and Kartar Singh (respondent). The Food Inspector, the Public Analyst, and the Director of the Central Food Laboratory were the principal witnesses whose reports formed the evidentiary basis of the case.
Issues, Contentions and Controversy
The Court was asked to determine (i) whether the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which prescribed a minimum Reichert value of 28 for ghee in Uttar Pradesh, violated Article 14 of the Constitution and could be struck down; (ii) whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the appellant by disregarding the prescribed standards and applying the lowest national standard; (iii) whether the appellant’s defence that the ghee originated from Jodhpur and that the Malik Ram precedent applied was legally tenable; and (iv) whether the conviction under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act should be restored and the sentence modified.
The State contended that the Rules had been framed by the Central Government after consultation with an expert Committee, were reasonable, and that the ghee sold by Singh was adulterated because its Reichert values were below the prescribed minimum of 28 for Uttar Pradesh. It further asserted that the burden of proving unreasonableness lay on the appellant and that no evidence had been adduced to demonstrate arbitrariness.
The appellant contended that he had purchased the ghee from Jodhpur, where the applicable minimum Reichert value was 21, and that the “pahadi” description entitled him to the lower standard recognized in State v. Malik Ram (a Reichert value of 26 for hill districts). He argued that the classification of zones in the Rules was arbitrary, violated Article 14, and that his fundamental right under Article 19(1) to carry on his business should preclude the application of the standards.
The precise controversy therefore centred on the constitutional validity of the zone‑based standards in the Food Adulteration Rules and on the legality of the High Court’s departure from those standards.
Statutory Framework and Legal Principles
The relevant statutory provisions were those of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, namely Section 2 (definition of “adulterated” food), Section 3 (empowerment to constitute a Committee for Food Standards), Section 7 (prohibition of manufacture, sale, storage or distribution of adulterated food), Section 16 (penalties), and Section 23 (authority of the Central Government to make rules after consultation with the Committee). Under Section 23(1)(b) the Central Government framed the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Rule 5 and Appendix B of those Rules prescribed minimum Reichert values for ghee: not less than 28 for Uttar Pradesh, not less than 26 for Himachal Pradesh and similar states, and not less than 21 for the Jodhpur division of Rajasthan.
The Court laid down the following legal principles. First, a rule made by a competent authority after expert consultation enjoys a presumption of reasonableness. Second, a challenger to the constitutionality of a statutory rule on the ground of violation of Article 14 bears the burden of pleading and proving that the classification is arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory. The test for such a challenge requires specific factual pleading and evidential support showing a lack of rational nexus to the legislative objective. Third, the definition of “adulterated” under Section 2 requires that the quality of the article fall below the prescribed standard; consequently, the prescribed Reichert value is the decisive criterion. Fourth, Article 19(1) does not confer a fundamental right to engage in a business that involves the sale of adulterated foodstuffs.
Court’s Reasoning and Application of Law
The Court reasoned that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, were validly framed under Section 23 because they were issued by the Central Government after consultation with the expert Committee. Accordingly, a strong presumption of reasonableness attached to the classification of zones and the minimum Reichert values. The Court observed that the appellant had advanced only an a priori argument that the division of zones was irrational, without producing any factual material or expert testimony to demonstrate that the standards were unreasonable or discriminatory. In the absence of such pleading and proof, the presumption of constitutionality prevailed.
Applying the statutory definition of “adulterated”, the Court examined the analytical reports. Both the Public Analyst’s report (Reichert value 22.5) and the Director’s report (Reichert value 21.7) were below the minimum value of 28 prescribed for Uttar Pradesh. The Court noted that the procedural requirements of seizure, analysis, and certification under the Act had been complied with, and that the Director’s report, being the higher authority under Section 13(3), superseded the Public Analyst’s report.
The Court rejected the appellant’s claim that the ghee originated from Jodhpur, observing that the High Court had found the ghee to be of local origin and that the appellant had offered no evidence to substantiate his Jodhpur purchase. The Court also dismissed reliance on State v. Malik Ram, holding that the precedent had been misapplied and did not justify a departure from the statutory standards.
Regarding Article 19(1), the Court held that the right to practice any profession did not extend to the manufacture or sale of adulterated food, and therefore could not be invoked to shield the appellant from liability.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the conviction under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act was proper, the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by striking down the Rules, and the appellate court possessed the authority to restore the conviction.
Final Relief and Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal granted by the Allahabad High Court, and restored the conviction of Kartar Singh under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Court modified the term of imprisonment, reducing it to the period already served by the appellant, and left the fine of Rs 200 imposed by the Sessions Judge in force. In its final conclusion, the Court affirmed the constitutional validity of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, held that the ghee sold by the appellant was adulterated within the meaning of the statute, and consequently reinstated the respondent’s conviction and penalty.