BADSHAHMAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Applicaut has been convicted under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 900/-

(2.) THE applicant was selling aerated water named Vimto. The Public Analyst found that this stated water contained Saccharin though the exact quantity present was not determined. The applicant has been convicted mainly on the ground that addition of Saccharin to the aerated water was specifically " prohibited under the Act, and as such the aerated water was adulterated.

(3.) TWO provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are relevant to decide the controversy raised in this revision. Section 16 (1) (a) of the Act, under which the applicant has been convicted, provides that if any personsells "any article of food" in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act" or any rule made thereunder, he shall be punished as prescribed by that section. Since the applicant has been convicted for selling aerated water called Vimto it is obvious that this aerated water is an 'article of food' within meaning of the Act.