M.V. JOSHI V. M.U. SHIMPI AIR 1961 SC 1494

 

M.V. JOSHI V. M.U. SHIMPI

AIR 1961 SC 1494

FACTS

The Appellant, a proprietor of a shop in Thana, deals in butter. In 1957 the Food Inspector of the Thana Borough Municipality visited the shop of the Appellant and purchased from him some quantity of Khandeshi butter. He further notified his intention to get the butter analysed. The public analyst analysed the butter and sent his report which stated that the butter consisted of 18.32 per cent foreign fat and 64.67 percent milk fat. The food inspector then complained against the Appellant and alleged that the butter was found to be “adulterated” as defined in Section 2(l)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and that the Appellant had committed an offence under Section 16(l)(a) of the Act by selling the adulterated article of food in contravention of Section 7(i) of the Act and the rules made thereunder.

ISSUE

The main issue before us was butter prepared from curds is not butter within the meaning of Rule A-11.05 of Appendix B to the Rules

DECISION OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

The Judicial Magistrate acquitted the Appellant on the ground that it had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the butter purchased from the Appellant’s shop was the same sample sent to the analyst and also observed that the butter prepared out of curd did not come within the mischief of the definition of the word “butter” in Rule A-11.05 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (Rules).

DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT

The high court allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent 1 against the acquittal of the Appellant by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thana, and convicted him under Section 16(1), read with Section 7(i), of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs 250.

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

1. This Hon'ble court first and foremost highlighted the process of making butter in India. Here, butter is prepared in the rural areas by the indigenous process out of soured milk and cream i.e. curd. In some cities butter is also made directly out of milk and cream; but the percentage of the said production is insignificant compared with the indigenous system obtained throughout India. Whatever process is adopted, whether butter is taken directly out of milk or taken out of soured milk or cream, it is prepared only from milk. The only difference between the two is that in the case of butter prepared from curd there is an intervening souring process which is not necessary in the case of butter directly prepared from milk or cream.
2. This court observed that since the act was a penal statute, the word “butter” had to be strictly construed. It stated that strict construction means that the conduct of the accused for the conviction must fall within the plain words of the penal statute without straining their natural meaning. If there are two possible constructions, the construction that is lenient to the accused must be construed, however, when the words are clear and unambiguous, the court is bound to accept the expressed intention of the legislature.
3. The intention of the act was passed to make provisions for the prevention of adulteration of food. Butter is a favourite edible fat and is consumed in different ways by innumerable persons in this country. It is prepared in the rural areas throughout this country by the indigenous process of churning soured milk, whereas only in a few cities butter is prepared directly from milk.
4. The court also relied on Maxwell for the rule of construction. It stated that “It is now recognized that the paramount duty of the judicial interpreter is to put upon the language of the Legislature, honestly and faithfully, its plain and rational meaning and to promote its object” (Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes)
5. The court also completely agreed with the observations made in Sadashiv v. P.V. Bhalarao that overturned the judgement Narshinha Bhaskar v. State of Bombay. It was emphasised that the basic material from which butter is made is important and the process by which it is made. Dahi is prepared from milk by souring it. Butter prepared from Dahi can, therefore, be said to be butter prepared from milk itself
6. In the present scenario, the word butter is clear and has no two meanings. Hence, the question of interpreting it in favour of the accused does not arise. The Appellant’s contention that butter made from curd isn’t covered in the rules does not suffice because butter is butter whether made from milk or curd the intention of the legislature is quite clear and there is no room for doubt.

RELEVANT THEORY

7. The rule of literal construction is considered to be the first principle of interpretation. According to this rule, the words of an enactment are to be given their ordinary and natural meaning if it is clear and unambiguous. Where wordings of a statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, the rule of literal construction is applied and recourse to other principles of interpretation is not required. Unless the law is logically defective and suffers from conceptual and inherent ambiguity, it should be given its literal meaning. The words of a statute are first understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and phrases and sentences are construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless that leads to some absurdity or they suggest a contrary meaning. Where the meaning of a word or expression is not clear, the literal rule of interpretation is not applicable. Ordinarily, court should not depart from literal rule as that would really be amending the law in the garb of interpretation, which is not permissible. Only when literal construction results in some absurdity or anomaly, other principles of interpretation may be applied.