RUPAK KUMAR vs STATE OF BIHAR

The Supreme Court held that the appellant, as Superintendent of Jail, could not be prosecuted under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, since the food items in question were not stored for sale but for the consumption of inmates. The Court emphasized that Section 7 of the Act prohibits the manufacture and sale of adulterated food, and since the appellant did not engage in sale, the allegations did not fall within the statutory provisions. Consequently, the Court quashed the cognizance order and the prosecution against the appellant was dismissed.