R LAKSHMIDAS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, the scope and meqning of Section 2 (i) (a) and (m) and the second proviso to Section 16 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 fall for consideration.

(2.) The necessary facts that give rise to this question may briefly be stated :The petitioner is a manufacturer of Ice candies and cool drinks at his premises at Tangutur. On 9-5-1981 at about 11 A.M. the Fo6d Inspector visited the premises and purchased a sample of 900. grams of Ice Candies for the purpose of analysis, after complying with all the necessary formalities. As per the Analyst's report the sample was adulterated as it contained saccharin which should not be present in the Ice candies. The lower court framed the necessary charges and convicted him under Section 16 (1) read with Sec. 7 (1) read with Sec. 2 (i) (a) and (m) and Rules 44 (g) and 47 of the Prevention of Food Adultaration Act and Rules and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. On appeal, the sentence is reduced to six months R.I. and the fine of Rs. 2,000/- is confirmed. Questioning the same, the revision case is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the quality or purity of the article viz., ice candy, is not below the prescribed standard and the presence of saccharin in the sample of ice candy is only violative of rule 44 (g) and, therefore, Sec. 2 (i) (a) (m) of the Food Adulteration Act is not attracted and his further submission is that the second proviso to Section 16 (1) also is attracted inasmuch as the article of food viz., ice candy can at the most be said to be adulterated as defined in Sec. 2 (i) (a) (a) and consequently it falls under section 16 (i) (a) (ii) and is violative of only Rule 44 (g) framed under clause (g) of sub-section (i-A) of section 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and, therefore, the imprisonment is not compulsory.