(1.) These are appeals directed against the acquittal of the respondents who are prosecuted for offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Sreedharan J., before whom these appeals came up for hearing, doubted the correctness of the decision of Padmanabhan J., in Sathyaseelan v. Food Inspector, Alleppey, 1985 KLT 1073 bearing on the question involved in these cases. Accordingly the appeals have been referred to a Division Bench.
(2.) In Sathyaseelan's case the learned Judge held that when the sample sold was one for which no standard has been fixed and when the sample does not contain any prohibited or injurious material it is impossible to say that it is adulterated. The learned counsel for the appellants stated that in the view of the definition of the term 'adulterated' in S.2(ia) of the Act the proposition stated is too wide and it requires reconsideration.
(3.) Under S.2(ia) of the Act an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated, if any one of the clauses (a) to (m) is attracted. Under clause (m) if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability but which does not render it injurious to health, the article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated. That covers articles for which standards have been prescribed. But there are several clauses which can apply to articles for which standards have not been prescribed under the rules. Under clause (j) if any colouring matter other than that prescribed in respect thereof is present in the article, or if the amounts of the prescribed colouring matter which is present in the article are not within the prescribed limits, it would be a case of adulteration. Similarly under clause (k) the article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if it contains any prohibited preservative in excess of the prescribed limits. In the decision referred to above, the articles subjected to analysis were "yellow water milk" and "ice milk". The learned Judge noticed that yellow water milk is the name given by the accused for some cool drinks prepared by him with milk, water and some other components. It was analysed by the Public Analyst as if it is milk and found to be adulterated only because it contained added water to the extent of 73 per cent. The Food Inspector had no case that it was exposed for sale or sold as milk. His case was that it was exposed for sale only as yellow water milk and what he demanded and purchased was only yellow water milk. The ice milk was also analysed by the analyst as if it was "milk ice" for which standards are fixed under Appendix B to the Rules. Ice milk was the name given by the vendor for a preparation made of milk, sugar, custard powder, egg and icecream essence for adding in fruit salad or ice cream soda etc. There was no case that the sample was a misbranded item of food or that it was a substitute for milk ice for which standard has been fixed. Therefore, on the facts of the case the learned Judge was justified in holding that when the sample sold was one for which no standard has been fixed and the sample does not contain any prohibited or injurious material it is impossible to say that it is adulterated, without considering whether any other clauses in S.2 would be attracted on the facts. In a case where the prosecution alleges only contravention of a particular clause in that the article of food is adulterated on account of the quality or purity of the article is not in conformity with the prescribed standards, it would be correct to say that if no standard is prescribed under the rules and the sample does not contain any prohibited or injurious articles it cannot be treated as adulterated as alleged. That does not mean that the prosecution should fail even in cases where other clauses are attracted and a specific charge thereunder is sustainable. We understand the aforesaid decision as confined to the facts of that particular case and subject to the clarification which we have attempted.