RAMANLAL CHIMANLAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant No. 1 Ramanlal Chimanlal Shah is the owner of an Aerated Water Factory known as Shahco situated at Saraspur Ahmedabad. That factory manufactures aerated waters one of which is known as Orange King. Appellant No. 2 is an employee in that factory. On 12-2-1964 at about 9-15 A. M. witness Ambalal Bhailal Patel who is the Food Inspector appointed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) visited the said factory for the purpose of taking a sample of the drink Orange King. At the time of his visit appellant No. 2 according to the prosecution was present.

(2.) The prosecution story is that the Food Inspector called two persons as Panchas and in their presence obtained from appellant No. 2 a sample of the drink Orange King. The sample so purchased from appellant No. 2 consisted of six bottles of the drink Orange King for being analysed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. He paid the price of those six bottles. The usual formalities of giving intimation receipt dividing the sample into three parts sealing the bottles etc. were gone through and a panchanama was duly made. One of the bottles so sealed was sent to the Public Analyst as required by sec. 11(1) of the Act. The report of the Public Analyst (Ex. 7) showed that the drink contained 0.016% of saccharin. Now on the declaratory labels appearing on the bottles there was no mention that the drink contained saccharin. According to the prosecution this was required to be mentioned and the non-mention amounted to an offence of misbranding. Now sec. 7(ii) of the Act provides that no person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale or store sell or distribute any misbranded food. Breach of that provision is punishable under sec 16(1)(i) of the Act. The two appellants were accordingly prosecuted for the offence and they have been convicted by the City Magistrate 8 Court Ahmedabad by his judgment and order dated 3rd April 1965. Each of them has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1 0 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. Against that conviction and sentence the appellants-accused have come in appeal. ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

(3.) Before discussing the evidence some of the relevant provisions of the Act may be referred to. Clause (v) of sec. 2 defines the expression food as meaning any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and then follows inclusive part in the definition with which we are not concerned. Clause (ix) of that section defines the expression misbranded. Out of the several sub-clauses of that clause we are here concerned with sub-clause (k). Under it an article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded if it is not lebelled in accordance with the requirements of the Act or rules made thereunder. Rule 32 of the Rules made under the Act (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) specifies the contents of a label. It lays down that unless otherwise provided in the rules there shall be specified on every label the details set out in the various clauses of the rule. Rule 47 which is relevant reads as under: