STATE Vs. SOLAI ALIAS SOLAYAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is against the judgment in C.C.No. 211 of 1982 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, acquitting the accused who have been charged for offences punishable under Sec7(1)(a)(ii) read with Secs.l6(ia) (a), (b)(m) and (j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE second respondent was running an icefactory under the name and style of Lakshmi Ice Factory at Thuvarakurichi. THE first respondent is the Manager of that ice factory. On 23rd June, 1982 at about 7.15a.m. P.W.1, the Food Inspector attached to Marungapuri Panchayat Union, inspected the shop of the accused. He purchased 900 grams (30 packets) of organe ice fruits for Rs.1.50. He divided the sample so purchased into three equal parts and then sent one such sample to the Analyst who found that the sample contains 130 parts of saccharin per million parts. He then filed a complaint before the Magistrate.

(3.) A doubt arises whether this ice-fruit is also ice candy. In the report of the Analyst, Ex.P8, we find that artificial sweetener, namely, saccharin, has been added. There is no doubt, a violation. But then, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that formalin has not been added. Mr.Kannppa Rajendran contends that as ice-fruit is not a milk product, no formalin need be added. In State of Kerala v. Lakshmanan, 1979 Crl.L.J. 1463, the Kerala High Court held that icecandy includes ice-fruit. In State of Maharashtra v. Sewaram, 1973 Crl.L.J. 1730, the learned Judge of the Bombay High Court held that non-compliance of the said rule is a position altogether different from a substantial compliance of the said rule. In other words, what the learned Judge meant is, the fact that Rule 20 is directory in nature does not necessarily mean that a total breach thereof is permitted.