AIR 1975 SUPREME COURT 2178 ::1976 2 SCC 99 ::1975 AllCriC 349 ::1976 MadLJ(Cri) 360 ::1976 2 SCJ 38 ::1976 (1) SCR 327 ::1976 SCC(Cri) 236 ::1976 SC Cri R 26

Supreme Court Of India

(From: Bombay)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): M. H. Beg, P. N. Bhagwati, R. S. Sarkaria , JJJ

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (37 of 1954) , S.7, S.16— Offence under - Mens rea - Proof - Necessity- Articles intended for human consumption as food - Proof of - Duty of prosecution. Criminal Appeal No. 1371 of 1969, D/- 17-2-1971 (Bom), Reversed. It is true that mens rea in the ordinary or usual sense of this term is not required for proving an offence defined by Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It is enough if an article of adulterated food is either manufactured for sale, or stored, or sold or distributed in contravention of any provision of the Act or of any rule made thereunder. Nevertheless, the prosecution has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that what was stored or sold was 'food'. Where circumstances raise a genuine doubt on the question whether what was kept by a seller was "food" at all, this must be resolved by evidence in the case.(Para 8) Hence, where Section 7 prohibits manufacture, sale or storage or distribution of certain types of "food", it necessarily denotes articles intended for human consumption as food. It becomes the duty of the prosecution to prove that the article which is the subject-matter of an offence is ordinarily used for human consumption as food whenever reasonable doubts arise on this question.(Para 10) When there is ....