FOOD INSPECTOR TELLICHERRY Vs. CHANDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Food Inspector of the Tellicherry Municipality is the appellant. He filed a complaint against the respondent under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act alleging that the latter sold prepared tea (beverage) sweetened (adulterated) with saccharin and dulcin. The lower court acquitted the respondent, and hence the appeal.

(2.) The report of the Public Analyst (Ext. P3) shows that the sample sent to him contained cane sugar 3 per cent and artificial sweeteners, saccharin 8 mgs, per 100 ml. and dulcin 9 mgs. per 100 ml. The report also shows that there was no coal tar dye. The opinion of the Public Analyst is that the sample contained artificial sweeteners, saccharin about 4 per cent of cane sugar and dulcin about 2 per cent of cane sugar. The Public Analyst has further opined that consumption of dulcin is injurious to health.

(3.) The Addl. First Class Magistrate observes that "there is no prohibition to use saccharin if there is sufficient notice and label'' and that dulcin is not prohibited by the rules. This is his reasoning for acquittal.