PREM CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by Prem Chandra against the judgment and order dated 1-5-1981 of Sri Bipin Chandra, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1980, which was dismissed by him and the conviction of the applicant under Sec. 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and the sentence imposed on him were maintained.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case was that tho applicant had a shop in which he sold sweeps and estables in Bhongaon Bazar of District Mainpuri. On 11-12-1977 at about 1.15 P.M. Ram Prakash. Food Inspector, visited the shop and purchased 1500 gms. of Balushahi from him by way of sample for examination by the Public Analyst. He paid its price, served a notice in Form VI and after dividing the Balushahis in three parts sealed it in three bottles, one of these when sent to the Public Analyst, was found to have been coloured by a prohibited coaltar dye orange II. Sanction of the Chief Medical Officer was, therefore, obtained and the applicant prosecuted resulting in his 1 conviction as aforesaid.

(3.) Rule 28 of the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act enumerates the dyes which are permitted to be used in food stuff and includes Sunset Yellow FCF also. This would mean that sunset yellow FCF A can be used in foodstuffs. Then, appendix B appended to this Act at Item No. A 26.02 has the synonym names of sunset yellow FCF dye and among the several synonyms which this dye has Lebensmittel Orange No. 2 is one. This would mean that Lebensmittel Orange No. 2 dye is also a permissible dye which can be used in preparation of food stuff. The Public Analyst who examined the Balushahis was examined and he stated that he has not come across the word "Lebensmittel" so far and he could not say whether the dye Orange 2 is different from Lebensmittel Orange No. 2 or not. This would mean that the Public Analyst does not know whether Orange No. 2 is the same dye as Lebensmittel Orange No. 2 and whether it is permissible in food stuff or not. It was, therefore, not proved in this case that the dye found by the Public Analyst to have been used in these Balushahis was a prohibited dye. The applicant, therefore, could not be convicted.'