TMI Blog1973 (3) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mahapalika, the second respondent is the Health Officer of the Mahapalika. THE Military Dairy Farm at Agra was in possession of a certain quantity of wheat flour. It was declared unfit for human consumption. It was purchased for the firm. According to the appellants, it was fit for being used as lehi, manure and ratab for consumption by animals. Broadly stated, their case was that the respondents initially stopped them from selling the flour and subsequently imposed restrictions on its sale, which effectively prevented the sale. Loss was caused to them on account of delay in sale due to their intervention. The respondents denied their liability. They said that their action was bona fide and in the interest of public safety and health ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judgment he gave this direction. Since this Atta is noxious to public health and it is not possible to prevent its reaching consumers (even though the accused had best intention) without effective regulation, I order that the entire Atta still be taken possession of by the Municipal medical officer of Health who will kindly regulate its disposal in consonance with considerations to the owner as is necessary to prevent its being used as food. THE Atta has already been kept frozen for too long a time and I would request the medical officer to kindly expedite action in this. Copy of this order may be sent to medical officer of Health immediately. On September 17, 1945 the second respondent issued an order under S. 244 of the U. P. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st of the appellants for the sale of flour for animal food. By his letter, dated October 6, 1945, the second respondent, however, permitted them to sell the flour for animal food under certain conditions. By the letter, dated October 8, 1945, the second respondent issued the following directions to the appellants under S. 244 of the Municipalities Act: (1) The Atta should not be sold for feeding animals kept for dairy purposes; (2) flour less than one full bag should not be sold to one individual; (3) there should be a distinctive label on every bag containing the warning that the contents could be used for animals only and were unfit for human consumption; and (4) any officer of the Nagarpalika not below the rank of a Sanitary Inspector wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Magistrate to be necessary for the preservation of the public peace or order, he may... . prohibit or regulate, the slaughter within the limits of a municipality of animal or animals of any specified description for purposes other than sale and prescribe the mode and route in and by which such animals shall be brought to, and meat shall be conveyed from, the place of slaughter. Section 242 reads: Whoever feeds or allows to be fed, an animal which is kept for dairy purposes or may be used for food, on filthy or deleterious substance shall be liable on conviction to a fine which may extend to fifty rupees. Section 243 is in these words: The President, the executive officer or the medical officer of health and, if authorised in this behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. His subjective satisfaction about this matter is decisive. The High Court has also taken the view that sub-section (1) aims to prevent a direct as well as an indirect sale for human consumption. According to the High Court if the flour is sold for feeding milch animals or animals whose flesh is eaten, it would be a sale for human consumption. In our opinion, S. 244 (1) is not susceptible of those meanings. The phrase an article of food or drink appears to be intended for the consumption of man does not contemplate any subjective satisfaction. The seller should intend to sell an article of food for human consumption. His intention is an objective fact. There should be present some facts or circumstances which would incline a reasonab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umption. The oral evidence adduced by the appellants is to the same effect. IT is admitted by the respondents that the appellants had placed a placard informing that the flour was unfit for human consumption. Their oral evidence does not show that the appellants were selling flour for human consumption. The appellants mixed maize flour with the condemned flour. But this act also would not show that they intended to sell the mixed flour for human food. The respondents could not therefore take action under S. 244. The orders passed by them under Section 244 are invalid. It is immaterial that the respondents had acted bona fide and in the interests of preservation of public health. Their motive may be good but their orders are illegal. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
