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, R.S. Bachawat
Date of decision: 29 November 1965
Citation / citations: 1966 AIR 1569; 1966 SCR (2) 815; D 1970 SC 520 (9)
Case number / petition number: Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 1963; Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 1962 (Calcutta High Court)
Proceeding type: Criminal Appeal
Source court or forum: Calcutta High Court

Source Judgment: Read judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

On 1 June 1960 a Food Inspector of the Corporation of Calcutta sampled “Comela” brand condensed milk from the shop of M/s Baburally Sardar, which was operated by Abdul Razzak in the Steward Hogg Market, Calcutta. The Public Analyst reported that the milk‑fat content of the sample was 3.4 percent, which fell short of the statutory minimum of 9 percent required for condensed milk under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act). A complaint was filed before the Municipal Magistrate and the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta. The magistrate acquitted the appellants while other accused were either discharged or remained under trial.

The Corporation of Calcutta appealed the acquittal under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Calcutta High Court set aside the acquittal, convicted the appellants under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, and imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 on each. The appellants obtained a certificate of appeal and filed Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 1963 before the Supreme Court of India, seeking reversal of the conviction and restoration of the original acquittal.

The appellants had purchased the tins of condensed milk on 3 May 1960 from Messrs S. Choudhury Brothers. They claimed to have demanded a written warranty in the prescribed form, which the supplier allegedly refused to furnish, asserting that a certificate and warranty were already affixed to each tin. The appellants further asserted that they stored and sold the tins in the same condition as received and that they had no reason to believe the product was adulterated.

The label on the tins described the product as “Full Cream sweetened condensed milk … prepared by Kwality Diary” and contained promotional statements, but it did not contain a warranty in the form required by Rule 12‑A (Form VI‑A). The cash memo accompanying the purchase listed only the quantity, description, rate and amount, and contained no warranty clause.

Issues, Contentions and Controversy

The Court was called upon to determine whether the appellants could avail themselves of the defence under section 19(2) of the Act. The specific issues were:

(i) Whether the appellants had purchased the condensed milk with a written warranty in the prescribed form.

(ii) Whether the label affixed to the tins or the cash memo satisfied the statutory requirement of a warranty.

(iii) Whether, in the absence of such a warranty, the appellants could rely on the remaining limbs of section 19(2) to escape liability for the offence under section 16(1)(a)(i).

The appellants contended that the description “Full Cream” on the label and the cash memo constituted a warranty, either expressly or by virtue of the proviso to Rule 12‑A, and that they therefore qualified for the defence. The State, represented by the Corporation of Calcutta, argued that the Act required a written warranty in the specific form prescribed by Rule 12‑A and that neither the label nor the cash memo met that requirement. The State further maintained that the milk was adulterated because its fat content was below the 9 percent standard and that, without a valid warranty, the High Court’s conviction was correct.

Statutory Framework and Legal Principles

The relevant statutory provisions were:

Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, which prescribed punishment for any person who stored or sold food in contravention of the Act or its rules.

Section 2(i), which defined “adulterated” as an article of food whose quality or purity fell below the prescribed standard.

Section 19(2), which provided a defence for a vendor who could prove (a) purchase of the article with a written warranty in the prescribed form, (b) no reason to believe that the food was not of the nature, substance and quality demanded, and (c) sale of the article in the same state as purchased, together with compliance with the notice requirements of the Act.

Rule 12‑A required a trader to deliver a warranty in Form VI‑A upon request, and Rule 42‑B(b) prescribed the label format for sweetened condensed milk. Appendix B to the Rules set the quality standard for condensed milk at a minimum of 31 % milk solids, of which at least 9 % must be fat.

The Court applied a three‑fold test derived from section 19(2): (1) existence of a written warranty in the prescribed form, (2) absence of reason to believe the article was not of the required nature, and (3) sale in the same condition as purchased. Failure of any limb of the test rendered the defence unavailable.

Court’s Reasoning and Application of Law

The Court first affirmed that the milk was adulterated because the Public Analyst’s report showed a fat content of 3.4 percent, which was below the 9 percent minimum required by Appendix B. Accordingly, the provisions of section 16(1)(a)(i) were attracted.

Turning to the defence under section 19(2), the Court examined the evidence of the label and the cash memo. It held that the label, although describing the product as “Full Cream sweetened condensed milk,” did not contain the statutory warranty language required by Rule 12‑A and Rule 42‑B(b). The cash memo listed only the basic transaction details and lacked any warranty clause. The Court found that the appellants had not produced a written warranty in Form VI‑A from Messrs S. Choudhury Brothers, despite their claim of having demanded one.

Because the first limb of the defence—possession of a written warranty in the prescribed form—was not satisfied, the Court concluded that the defence could not be invoked, irrespective of the appellants’ alleged lack of knowledge or the condition in which they sold the tins. The Court therefore upheld the High Court’s finding that the conviction was proper.

Procedurally, the Court noted that the appeal had been filed under the appropriate provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Final Relief and Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirmed the conviction of the appellants under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and upheld the fine of Rs 2,000 imposed on each appellant. The defence under section 19(2) was held to have failed because the appellants did not possess a written warranty in the prescribed form. Consequently, the original acquittal recorded by the magistrate was not restored, and the High Court’s judgment was confirmed.