{"id":24712,"date":"1971-05-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-05-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971"},"modified":"2018-07-15T13:45:19","modified_gmt":"2018-07-15T08:15:19","slug":"food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971","title":{"rendered":"Food Inspector, Calicut … vs Cherukattil Gopalan And Anr on 6 May, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Food Inspector, Calicut … vs Cherukattil Gopalan And Anr on 6 May, 1971<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1725, \t\t 1971 SCR 721<\/div>\n
Author: C Vaidyialingam<\/div>\n
Bench: Vaidyialingam, C.A.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nFOOD INSPECTOR, CALICUT CORPORATION\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCHERUKATTIL GOPALAN AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT06\/05\/1971\n\nBENCH:\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\nBENCH:\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\nRAY, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR 1725\t\t  1971 SCR  721\n 1971 SCC  (2) 322\n\n\nACT:\nPrevention  of\tFood Adulteration Act, 1954  (37  of  1954)-\nSection 16 (1)(a)(i)-Sale of Food for analysis-To be  guilty\nof offence under section, food need not be intended for sale\nand person selling need not be a dealer.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nA  sale\t of  an article of food for  analysis  being  \"sale\"\nwithin\tthe meaning of s. 2(xiii) of the Prevention of\tFood\nAdulteration Act, 1954, an article of food sold to the\tFood\nInspector,  if found to be adulterated, the accused will  be\nguilty\tof an offence punishable under s.  16(1)(a)(i)\tread\nwith S. 7 of the Act.  The article of food purchased by\t the\nFood  Inspector need not have been taken out from  a  larger\nquantity  intended  for sale and the person  from  whom\t the\narticle\t of food has been purchased need not be a dealer  as\nsuch in that article. [729 G]\nWhere  sugar  purchased\t by  the  Food\tInspector  from\t the\nRespondents'  tea stall was found to be adulterated and\t the\nRespondents were charged with an offence under s. 16(1)\t (a)\n(i)  of the Act, the respondents must be held guilty of\t the\noffence\t charged with, even though the sugar  purchased\t was\nnot  intended for sale as such and the respondents were\t not\ndealers in sugar.\nMangaldas  Raghavji  Ruparel  and  Anr.\t v.  The  State\t  of\nMaharashtra and Anr.,<\/a> [1965] 2 S.C.R. 849, State of  Gujarat\nv.  Asandas  Kimmatrai Kevalramanni, A.I.R. 1964  Guj.\t191,\nMunicipal  Board, Faizabad v. Lal Chand Surajmal  and  Anr.,\nA.I.R. 1964 All. 199 and The Public Prosecutor v. Palanisami,\nA.I.R. 1965 Mad. 98, referred to.\nPublic Prosecutor v, Kandasamy Reddiar, A.I.R. 1959 Mad. 33.\nExplained.\nIn  re:\t Govinda  Rao,\tA.I.R.\t1960  Andhra  Pradesh\t366,\ndisapproved.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 281 of
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nJune  26, 1968 of the Kerala High Court in  Criminal  Appeal
\nNo. 113 of 1968.\n<\/p>\n
A.   Sreedharan Nambiar, for the appellant.
\nS.   K.\t Mehta,\t K. L. Mehta, and K. R.\t Nagaraja,  for\t the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nVaidialingam, J.-This appeal, by special leave, by the\tFood
\nInspector,  Calicut  Corporation, is  directed\tagainst\t the
\njudgment  and order dated June 26, 1968 of the\tKerala\tHigh
\nCourt in
\n46-I S.C. India\/7i
\n722<\/span>
\nCriminal Appeal No. 113 of 1968 confirming the acquittal  of
\nthe  respondents of an offence under S. 16(1)(a)(i)  of\t the
\nPrevention  of\tFood Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act No.  37  of
\n1954) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).
\nThe   first  respondent\t is  the  Manager  and\tthe   second
\nrespondent,  his wife, are the owner and licencee of  a\t tea
\nstallin\t the premises No. 4\/777 Customs Road,  Calicut.
\nThey  were accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.\tOn  November
\n17, 1965 at about 9.45\t A.M.,\tthe Food Inspector,  Calicut
\nCorporation, purchased from   the first respondent 600 grams
\nof sugar for a price of 78 paise ,for\tanalysis  from\t the
\nstock  of  sugar  kept in the premises to  be  used  in\t the
\npreparation  of tea sold to customers in the said tea  stall
\nrun by the second respondent under the licence issued by the
\nCorporation.  The quantity of sugar so purchased was sampled
\nas  per the rules in the presence of the first\taccused\t and
\nthe  witnesses.\t One portion of the sample was sent  to\t the
\nPublic Analyst for analysis.’ The Analyst in his report\t Ex.
\nP.  3 dated December 28, 1965 has certified that the  sample
\ncontained artificial sweetner saccharin equivalent to  about
\nseven\tpercent\t  of  cane  sugar  and\ttherefore   it\t was
\nadulterated. In fact the analysis is as follows :\n<\/p>\n
     “Ash 0.02 per cent
\n     Total sugar    96.00 per cent
\n     as cane sugar
\n     Saccharin\t    14.0 mgs. per 100 gms.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On  the\t basis of this report the Food\tInspector  filed  on
\nMarch  21, 1966 a complaint against the two accused  in\t the
\nCourt  of  the\tDistrict  Magistrate,  (Judicial),  Calicut.
\nAfter setting out the necessary facts and the report of\t the
\nPublic Analyst, the complaint alleged that the sale of\tsuch
\nsub-standard food which was adulterated is prohibited  under
\nS. 7 read with item A. 07.01 in appendix to the rules framed
\nunder the Act and therefore, it was an offence.\t There is  a
\nreference  to the conviction of the first accused  on  prior
\noccasions.  It is not necessary for us now to refer it.
\nBoth  the  accused  were  charged of  an  offence  under  s.
\n16(1)(a)(i) of the Act for having sold on November 17,\t1965
\n600  gm.  of  sugar  for a price of 78\tpaise  to  the\tFood
\nInspector from the tea stall and which sugar was found to be
\nadulterated by the Public Analyst.\n<\/p>\n
Both  the accused pleaded not guilty and even denied  having
\nsold sugar to the Food Inspector.\n<\/p>\n
723<\/span><\/p>\n
The learned District Magistrate recorded the following find-
\nings : The “sugar” is an article of food as defined under s.
\n2(v)  of the Act ; the Food Inspector purchased\t sugar\tfrom
\nthe tea stall of the accused, sampled it then and there\t and
\nhanded\tover  to  the first accused.  There was\t a  sale  as
\ndefined\t in  the Act of sugar to the Food Inspector  by\t the
\nfirst  accused; the ,purchase and the sampling by  the\tFood
\nInspector were done in strict compliance with the provisions
\nof  the Act.  The report of the Public\tAnalyst\t establishes
\nthat the sugar purchased from ,the tea stall of the  accused
\nwas adulterated.  But in order to hold that the accused have
\ncommitted  an  offence,\t it must be  :established  that\t the
\naccused\t were selling sugar as such in the tea stall,  which
\nis  not\t the  fact in this case.  On  the  other  hand,\t the
\naccused were selling tea and the sugar was kept only for the
\npurpose\t of  being  mixed with tea which  was  sold  to\t the
\n,customers and the Food Inspector has clearly admitted\tthat
\nsugar  as  such\t is not in the tea  stall  of  the  accused.
\nInasmuch as sugar was not kept for sale by the accused, they
\nare  not  guilty ;of any offence.  In this  view,  both\t the
\naccused\t were  acquitted  ,under s. 258(1) of  the  Code  of
\nCriminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
The  State  filed  an appeal before the\t Kerala\t High  Court
\nchallenging  the  acquittal of the  respondents.   The\tHigh
\nCourt  agreed with the findings of the\tDistrict  Magistrate
\nthat there was a sale as defined in the Act of sugar to\t the
\nFood Inspector by ,the accused on November 17, 1965 and\t the
\nsaid article was adulterated as is established by the report
\nof  the\t Public Analyst.  The High Court set before  it\t the
\nprinciple that the prosecution will have to establish, under
\nsuch  circumstances, that the persons from whom the  article
\nof food had been purchased are those “selling those articles
\nas  such”.   The  High Court applied the test  to  find\t out
\nwhether the respondents “are persons selling ,sugar as such”
\nand  answered the question in the negative.   Agreeing\twith
\nthe  findings of the District Magistrate that the sugar\t in
\nthe tea stall of the accused was not kept for sale as such
\nbut  for being utilised in the preparation of tea which\t was
\nbeing  sold  to the customers, the High Court  finally\theld
\nthat  the purchase by the Food Inspector of sugar  from\t the
\nrespondents cannot be considered to be a purchase under the
\nAct so as to make them liable of the offence with which they
\nwere charged.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  A. S. Nambiar, learned counsel for the appellant, urged
\nthat  the  views  of  both the High Court  as  well  as\t the
\nDistrict  Magistrate that the respondents are not guilty  as
\nthey  are  not\tdealers\t in sugar  as  such,  is  erroneous,
\nspecially after a finding that there has been a sale to\t the
\nFood Inspector under the Act and the article was found to be
\nadulterated.  According to Mr. Nambiar when once the article
\nof food is sold to the Food
\n724<\/span>
\nInspector  for\tanalysis, it is of no consequence  that\t the
\nsaid  ,article\twas not intended to be sold as such  by\t the
\naccused,  as  a\t sale of an article of food  under  the\t Act
\nattracts  all the consequences that flow from such  sale  as
\nprovided under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
On the other hand, Mr. S. K. Mehta, learned counsel for\t the
\nrespondents,  urged  that in order to make  the\t respondents
\nliable,\t it  must be established that they were\t dealers  in
\nsugar  as  such.  In view of the concurrent  findings  based
\nupon  the admission of the Food Inspector that\tthe  accused
\nwere not dealers in sugar as such and that the sugar kept by
\nthem  was  intended to be used in the  preparation  of\ttea,
\ntheir acquittal is justified.\n<\/p>\n
Before\twe  proceed  to deal  with  these  contentions\twith
\nreference to the provisions of the Act and certain decisions
\nplaced\tbefore us by both the learned counsel, it is  to  be
\nrecorded that Mr. Nambiar has made it clear that his clients
\ndo  not\t want the respondents to be convicted, in  case\t his
\ncontentions are accepted.  On the other hand, he stated that
\nthe  Corporation is only anxious to have a decision of\tthis
\nCourt on the legal point.  We will now refer to some of\t the
\nmaterial provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 2(1)  defines the  various  expressions  enumerated
\ntherein.   In  particular it is only necessary to  refer  to
\nclauses\t 5, 12, 13 and 14 defining the\texpressions  “food”,
\n“prescribe”, “sale” and “sample” respectively.\tThey are  as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(v) “food” means any article used as food  or
\n\t      drink  for human consumption other than  drugs
\n\t      and water and includes-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   any\t article  which\t ordinarily   enters
\n\t      into,  or\t is  used  in  the  composition\t  or
\n\t      preparation of human food, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   any flavouring matter or condiments
\n\t      “(xii)  “Prescribed means prescribed by  rules
\n\t      made under this Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (xiii)\t “sale”\t   with\t  its\t grammatical
\n\t      variations  and cognate ex.  pressions,  means
\n\t      the  sale of any article of food, whether\t for
\n\t      cash  or on credit or by way of  exchange\t and
\n\t      whether  by  wholesale or\t retail,  for  human
\n\t      consumption  or  use,  or\t for  analysis,\t and
\n\t      includes\tan agreement for sale, an offer\t for
\n\t      sale,  the  exposing  for sale  or  having  in
\n\t      possession  for sale of any such\tarticle\t and
\n\t      includes\talso  an attempt to  sell  any\tsuch
\n\t      article.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      725<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (xiv) “sample”  means a sample of any  article
\n\t      of food taken under the provisions of this Act
\n\t      or of any rules made thereunder.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
There  is  no  controversy  that sugar\twith  which  we\t are
\nconcerned in this case is an article used as food for  human
\nconsumption or at any rate it is an article which ordinarily
\nentered into or is used in the composition or preparation of
\nhuman food.  Even according to the respondents the sugar  so
\nkept  in  their\t tea stall was intended to be  used  in\t the
\npreparation of tea which was being sold to the customers.  A
\nreference to the definition of ‘sale’ will also show that  a
\nsale  of any article of food for analysis comes within\tthat
\ndefinition.   That the sample of food purchased by the\tFood
\nInspector in this case satisfies the definition of ‘sale’ in
\nclause 14 is also beyond controversy.\n<\/p>\n
Before\twe refer to certain other sections, it is  necessary
\nto state that ss. 4(2) & 23(1) of the Act give power to\t the
\nCentral\t Government to make rules in respect of the  matters
\nreferred to in those sub-sections.  By virtue of the  powers
\nconferred  under ss. 4(2) and 23(1) the\t Central  Government
\nhave framed the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules,\t1955
\n(hereinafter  to  be  referred to as  the  Rules).   Rule  5
\nprovides  that\tthe  standards of  quality  of\tthe  various
\narticles of food specified in Appendix B to the Rules are as
\ndefined\t in  that  Appendix.   Appendix\t B  deals  with\t the
\ndefinition  and standards of quality.  Item A. 07.01 of\t the
\nappendix deals with cane sugar and enumerates its  contents.
\nIt-  is not necessary for us to deal with the definition  of
\nthe  expression\t ‘adulterated’\tin s. 2(i) as  well  as\t the
\nrequirements  under item A. 07.01 of the Appendix B  of\t the
\nRules  as there is no challenge to the report of the  Public
\nAnalyst\t that the sugar in question was adulterated,  as  it
\ndoes  not conform to the requirements of the item  mentioned
\nabove.\t In  fact the High Court ,as well  as  the  District
\nMagistrate have also proceeded on that basis.
\nWe will now revert back to the Act.  Section 7 prohibits the
\nmanufacture,  sale etc. of certain articles of food.  It  is
\nnot  necessary\tto  refer to the  various  items  enumerated
\ntherein.   But we will refer only to the main part of s.  7,
\nwhich is as follows
\n\t     “‘Section 7. No person shall himself or by\t any
\n\t     person  on his behalf manufacture for sale”  or
\n\t     store, sell or distribute-\n<\/p>\n
It  will be seen that s. 7 deals not only with\tmanufacture,
\nsale,  storing\tor distributing but also  selling.   We\t are
\nparticularly  emphasising  this aspect because it  has\tbeen
\nmissed\tin this case
\n726<\/span>
\nnot  only  by  the  two\t courts but  also  in  some  of\t the
\ndecisions, to, which our attention has been drawn.  Section
\n10 deals with the powers of the Food Inspector.\t Under\tsub-
\nsection\t 10(i)(a)  the\tFood Inspector\thas  power  to\ttake
\nsamples\t of  any  article of food from any  of\tthe  persons
\nenumerated  in sub-clauses (i) to (iii) Section 12  gives  a
\nright even to a purchaser, who is not the Food Inspector  of
\nhaving\tthe article of food analysed by a Public Analyst  in
\naccordance  with that section.\tSection 16(1)(a)(i),  breach
\nof which is alleged against the respondents is as follows
\n“S. 16(1) If any person-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   whether  by\t himself  or  by  any  other
\n\t      person  on  his behalf imports into  India  or
\n\t      manufactures  for\t sale, or stores,  sells  or
\n\t      distributes any article of food-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   which  is adulterated or  misbranded  or
\n\t      the  sale of which is prohibited by  the\tFood
\n\t      (Health)\tauthority in the interest of  public
\n\t      health;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Here  again it is to be noted that any person who sells\t any
\narticle of food which is adulterated shall be punishable  in
\naccordance, with that section.\tThe Food Inspector purchased
\nsugar  on  November  17, 1965, from the\t tea  stall  of\t the
\nrespondents  on\t payment  of price.   The  said\t transaction
\nclearly amounts to a sale under s. 2(xiii) of the Act.\tFrom
\nthe  definition\t of  “sale” already quoted,  a\tsale  of  an
\narticle\t of  food,  for\t analysis is  a\t sale.\t Under\tsuch
\ncircumstances it amounts to a sale under the Act as has been
\nlaid  down by this Court in Mangaldas Raghavji\tRuparel\t and
\nanother v. The State of Maharashtra and another(1).  It\t was
\nheld in the said decision that there is a special definition
\nof  “sale”  in\ts. 2(xiii) of  the  Act\t which\tspecifically
\nincludes within its ambit the sale for analysis.
\nMr.  Nambiar referred us to certain decisions to the  effect
\nthat  when once there is a sale as defined in the Act of  an
\narticle\t of food, it is not necessary to establish that\t the
\naccused are dealers in that article as such In the  decision
\nreported in Municipal Board, Faizabad v. Lal Chand  Surajmal
\nand another(2) the accused had a shop where tea was sold and
\nfor the purpose of preparing tea, they had stored milk which
\nwas a necessary ingredient for the preparation of tea.\t The
\nFood  Inspector took a sample of milk from the tea shop\t and
\non  analysis it was found’ to be adulterated.  The  question
\nwas  whether the accused could, be convicted for an  offence
\nunder s. 16(1)(a)(i) read with s. 7 of the Act.\t The plea of
\nthe accused was that the milk kept in
\n(1)[1965] 2 S.C.R. 894.\n<\/p>\n
(2).R.\t  1964 All. 199.\n<\/p>\n
727<\/span><\/p>\n
the  tea shot) was not intended to be sold as such  but\t was
\nkept  for being used in. the preparation of tea.   The\tHigh
\nCourt  held that though the accused could not  be  convicted
\nfor  storing the milk, which was found to be adulterated  as
\nthe milk was not stored for sale as such, nevertheless, they
\ndid ‘sell’ milk to the Food Inspector.\tAs the said sale was
\nof adulterated milk, the accused have committed an  offence.
\nIt is not necessary for us in the case before us to consider
\nwhether the expression ‘stored? occurring in s. 7 and s.  16
\nshould be interpreted as storage for purposes of sale.\t The
\ncase  on  hand\tcan be disposed\t of  without  deciding\tthat
\naspect.\n<\/p>\n
In the State of Gujarat v. Asandas Kimmatrai Kevalramanni(1)
\nthe  Food Inspector purchased ‘Dahi’ (Curd) and on  analysis
\nit  was found to contain fifty percent fat deficiency.\t The
\naccused\t was prosecuted for an offence under s.\t 16(1)(a)(i)
\nof  the\t Act.  The accused pleaded that he  had\t not  stored
\n‘Dahi’\tfor purposes of sale but he was keeping it only\t for
\nthe preparation of ‘Lachhi’ and he further pleaded that\t the
\n‘Dahi’ purchased by the Food Inspector was not taken from  a
\nlarger\tquantity which was stored by him for the purpose  of
\nsale  as ‘Dahi’.  Here again we are not concerned  with\t the
\nobservations  of  the learned Judge as to  what\t constitutes
\nstoring\t under the Act.\t But the learned Judge held that  it
\nis  not\t necessary that the accused should be  a  dealer  in
\n‘Dahi’ as such and it is also not necessary that the  ‘Dahi’
\nsold  to  the Food Inspector must have been taken out  of  a
\nlarger quantity intended for sale.  It was held that so long
\nas  there  has been a sale as defined under the Act  to\t the
\nFood  Inspector of Dabi and when it was\t found\tadulterated,
\nthe accused is guilty of the offence.\n<\/p>\n
To a similar effect is the decision of The Public Prosecutor
\nv. Palanisami Nadar(2) where it was held that when there has
\nbeen a sale to the Food Inspector for analysis of an article
\nof,  food, which, when found to be adulterated, the  accused
\nis guilty of   an offence.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr.   Mehta,  learned  counsel  for  the\trespondents,
\nreferred us to the  decisions  reported in  Food  Inspector,
\nKozhikode  v.  Punsi  Desaie) Narain Das  v.  State,(1)\t and
\nRameshwar  Das\tRadhey Led v. The State,(1).  in  all  those
\ndecisions  the\tCourt  has considered  the  question  as  to
\nwhether the storage of an article under
\n(1)  A.I.R. 1964 Guj. 191,
\n(2)  A.I.R. 1965 Mad. 98.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  A.I.R. 1959 Kerala 190.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  A.I.R. 1962 All. 82.\n<\/p>\n
(5)  A.I.R. 1967 Punjab 132.\n<\/p>\n
728<\/span><\/p>\n
the  Act must be for the purpose of sale.  We have  already
\nindicated  that\t the-  said  question  does  not  arise\t for
\nconsideration  before us and we do not propose to  refer  to
\nthose  decisions in detail.  But we may point out  that\t the
\ndecision in Narain Das v. State(1) has been distinguished by
\nthe  same  Court in Municipal Board Faizabad  v.  Lal  Chand
\nSurajmal and another,(2) to which we have already referred.
\nMr.   Mehta  referred  us  to  two  decisions;\tThe   Public
\nProsecutor  ,V.\t  Kandasamy Reddiar(3) and in  Re.   Govinda
\nRao(4) in support of his contention that the article of food
\npurchased  by the Food Inspector must be shown to have\tbeen
\nkept by the accused for purposes of sale as such.  In  other
\nwords,\taccording  to the learned counsel the  person  “from
\nwhom  an article of food is purchased by the Food  Inspector
\nmust be a dealer in such article”.  In the Public Prosecutor
\nv. Kandasamy Reddiar(3) the findings of the two courts\twere
\nthat  the accused was carrying the milk taken from  his\t own
\nbuffalo for his own use.  This decision does not assist\t the
\nrespondents.   But it must be stated that the said  decision
\ndoes  not  consider  the legal effect of a sale\t to  a\tFood
\nInspector  under the Act and its consequences.\tBut  we\t may
\npoint out that under s. 10(1)(a) the Food Inspector has\t got
\npower  to  take\t samples of any article\t of  food  from\t the
\npersons enumerated in sub-clauses  (i)\tto  (iii).  It\twill
\nbe seen in particular from sub-clause (ii) of s.  10(1)(a)
\nthat  the Food Inspector can take samples from\t“any  person
\nwho  is in the course of conveying, delivering or  preparing
\nto deliver such article to a purchaser or consignee”.
\nIn the case before us if the accused had purchased the sugar
\nand it was in the process of being conveyed to be  delivered
\nto  the\t accused, the Food Inspector could  have  taken\t the
\nsample\tunder  s.  10  from any\t person\t in  the  course  of
\nconveying the article for delivery.  Similarly, even if\t the
\nsugar  had been delivered to the accused,  under  sub-clause\n<\/p>\n
(iii)  of s. 10(1)(a), the Food Inspector could\t have  taken
\nthe samples from them as consignee of the article.
\nIn  the In Re.\tGovinda Rao(4) the accused who was the\tpro-
\nprietor\t of  a\tCoffee and Meals Hotel\twas  prosecuted\t for
\nhaving\tsold  adulterated ghee to the Food  Inspector.\t The
\ndefence\t was that the, accused was not a dealer in  ghee  as
\nsuch and that, the said article was stored in the Hotel\t for
\nthe  purpose  of being served along with the  meals  to\t the
\ncustomers  or  for  using it in\t the  preparation  of  other
\narticles  of food.  The accused was acquitted on the  ground
\nthat in order to constitute an offence, the
\n(1)  A.I.R. 1962 All. 82.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  A.T.R. 1964 All. 199.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  A.I.R. 1959 Mad. 333.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  A.I.R. 1960 Andhra Pradesh 366.\n<\/p>\n
729<\/span><\/p>\n
accused\t should have been a dealer in ghee,as such and\tthat
\nthe _prosecution cannot succeed by the Food Inspector merely
\ntaking\tadulterated  ghee  which, was stored  by  the  hotel
\nkeeper\tfor  being ,served with the meals or  for  preparing
\nother articles of food.\n<\/p>\n
We  are\t not inclined to agree with  this  decision  because
\nit .has not considered, the legal effect of a sale to a Food
\nInspector under the Act.  We do not also find any indication
\nin the Act -that when a Food Inspector purchases an article
\nof  food from a person, the latter must be a dealer in\tthat
\narticle as such.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents relied on ss.
\n12 and 14 to support his argument that the Act\tcontemplates
\n,.that the person from whom an article of food is  purchased
\nmust  ,be  a  dealer of that article as\t such  and  if\tthat
\narticle\t is found to be adulterated, a person can be  found
\nguilty\tunder  the  Act.  If article A\tis  stored  for\t the
\npurpose\t of being used in the preparation of other  articles
\nof  food,  the\tfact that article A purchased  by  the\tFood
\nInspector  is  found  to be adulterated will  not  make\t the
\nperson\tselling that article liable under the Act.   Section
\n12   give   a\tright\tto   any   purchaser,\tother\tthan
\nthe  Food  Inspector, to have the article purchased  by\t him
\nanalysed  by  the  Public Analyst in  accordance  with\tthat
\nsection.  Section 14 makes it mandatory on a  manufacturer,
\ndistributor  or\t dealer\t of any article of food\t to  give  a
\nwarranty  when\the  sells an article about  the\t nature\t and quali
\nty of that article to the vendor.  We are not able  to
\nfind how  these\t two  sections\tsupport\t the  propositions
\nenunciated  by\tMr. Mehta.  If a third party  had  purchased
\nsugar  from  the tea stall of the accused and if  the  said
\npurchase  constitutes  a “sale’ under the Act, s.  12  gives
\nsuch  a\t party\tto have the article analysed by\t a  Public
\nAnalyst.  Similarly, s. 14 is also of no assistance to the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
To sum up we are in agreement with the decisions reported in
\nMunicipal   Board,  Faizabad  v.  Lal  Chand  Surajmal\t and
\nanother(1) and The Public Prosecutor v. Palanisami  Nadar(2)
\nto the extent to which they lay down the principle that when
\nthere  is a sale to the Food Inspector under the Act  of  an
\narticle\t of  food,  which is found to  be  adulterated,\t the
\naccused\t will  be guilty of an offence punishable  under  s.
\n16(1)(a)(i)  read  with s. 7 of the Act.  We  further  agree
\nthat  the  article of food which has been purchased  by\t the
\nFood  Inspector need not have been taken out from  a  larger
\nquantity intended for sale.  We are also of the opinion that
\nthe person from whom the article of food has been  purchased
\nby  the Food Inspector need not be a dealer as such in\tthat
\narticle.   We are not inclined to agree with  the  decisions
\nlaying the contrary propositions.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  A.I.R. 1964 All. 199.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  A.I.R. 1965 Mad. 98.\n<\/p>\n
730<\/span><\/p>\n
Coming to the case on hand, on the finding of the two courts
\nthe sugar in question has been found to be adulterated.\t The
\npurchase by the Food Inspector from the accused of sugar for
\npurposes of analysis is a sale under s. 2(13) of the.\tAct.
\nSection\t 7  prohibits  a  person  from\tselling\t adulterated
\narticle of food.  Similarly, under s. 16(1)(a)(i) any person
\nwho  sells  adulterated\t food  commits\tan  offence  and  is
\npunishable therein.  The sugar which is the commodity before
\nus  is\tfood  under s. 2(5) of the  Act.   We  have  already
\npointed out that sugar by itself’ is an article used as food
\nor  at any rate it is an article ‘which,  ordinarily  enters
\ninto  or is used in the composition or preparation of  human
\nfood.\tIn  this  case the sale was  for  analysis  and\t the
\narticle was an article of food and in view of the concurrent
\nfindings  of  both the courts that it was  adulterated,\t the
\nrespondent&  have contravened ss. 7 and 16(1)(a)(i)  of\t the
\nAct.   Hence  it  must\tbe held\t that  the  respondents\t are
\ntechnically  guilty  of\t the offence with  which  they\twere
\ncharged\t and  they have been wrongly acquitted by  the\tHigh
\nCourt and the District Magistrate.  But in view of the\tfact
\nthat the appellant has argued the appeal only as a test case
\nand does not challenge the acquittal of the respondents,  we
\nmerely\tset aside the order and judgment of the High  Court.
\nBut  we\t may  make  it clear that  apart  from\tholding\t the
\nrespondents technically guilty, we are not setting aside the
\norder of acquittal passed in their favour.
\nIn the result the judgment and order of the High Court\tare:
\nset aside and the appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
We  find  that on December 12, 1968  when  granting  special
\nleave  this Court had directed the appellant to deposit\t Rs.
\n1000\/to\t be  used  by the respondents for  their  costs\t and
\nliberty\t has been given to the respondents to  withdraw\t the
\namount\tto  pay fee to, the counsel, in case they  engage  a
\ncounsel.   As the respondents have engaged a  counsel,\tthey
\nare  entitled to withdraw from the court deposit the  amount
\nrepresenting the costs incurred by them. and the fee payable
\nto the counsel under the relevant rules.  Surplus,, if\tany,
\nwill be refunded to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
K.B.N.\t\t\t\t\t Appeal allowed.\n731<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Food Inspector, Calicut … vs Cherukattil Gopalan And Anr on 6 May, 1971 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1725, 1971 SCR 721 Author: C Vaidyialingam Bench: Vaidyialingam, C.A. PETITIONER: FOOD INSPECTOR, CALICUT CORPORATION Vs. RESPONDENT: CHERUKATTIL GOPALAN AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT06\/05\/1971 BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. RAY, A.N. CITATION: 1971 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24712","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nFood Inspector, Calicut ... vs Cherukattil Gopalan And Anr on 6 May, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Food Inspector, Calicut ... vs Cherukattil Gopalan And Anr on 6 May, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1971-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-15T08:15:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Food Inspector, Calicut … vs Cherukattil Gopalan And Anr on 6 May, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-15T08:15:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971\"},\"wordCount\":4092,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971\",\"name\":\"Food Inspector, Calicut ... vs Cherukattil Gopalan And Anr on 6 May, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-15T08:15:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Food Inspector, Calicut … vs Cherukattil Gopalan And Anr on 6 May, 1971\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Food Inspector, Calicut ... vs Cherukattil Gopalan And Anr on 6 May, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Food Inspector, Calicut ... vs Cherukattil Gopalan And Anr on 6 May, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-15T08:15:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Food Inspector, Calicut … vs Cherukattil Gopalan And Anr on 6 May, 1971","datePublished":"1971-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-15T08:15:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971"},"wordCount":4092,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971","name":"Food Inspector, Calicut ... vs Cherukattil Gopalan And Anr on 6 May, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-15T08:15:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-inspector-calicut-vs-cherukattil-gopalan-and-anr-on-6-may-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Food Inspector, Calicut … vs Cherukattil Gopalan And Anr on 6 May, 1971"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24712","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24712"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24712\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24712"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24712"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24712"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}