JAGANANADHAN Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR, BHIMAVARAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused is convicted under sections 2(l)(a)(m) and 7 read with section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00. The accused manufactures biscuits. On 20th Nov., 1975, Food Inspector, Bhimavaram Municipality visited the shop of the accused along with his staff. He found 23 tea biscuits in a tin. He purchased biscuits weighing 600 grams, divided the same into three parts and sent one sample for analysis. The Public Analyst reported that the sample contained ash insoluble in dilute Hydrochloric Acid, in excess of the prescribed limit. It also contained alcoholic acidity in excess of the prescribed limit. At the request of the accused another sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. They reported that the sample did not conform to the standards prescribed and, therefore, it was adulterated. I find that both the reports vary with regard to the data given concerning ash and alcoholic acidity contents found in the sample. Therefore a complaint was filed against the accused. Believing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the learned Magistrate convicted the accused. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed.

(2.) Sri Veerabhadrayya, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has raised two questions : First, he submitted that the case falls under section 2(l)(a) and (m) of the Act, and the biscuits were not adulterated. He laid strong emphasis on the proviso. I am of the opinion that the proviso has no application, for the article in question is not primary food. In view of both the reports of analysis that the biscuits were adulterated.

(3.) Next he submitted that under Rule 22 the minimum quantity of sample of biscuits that should be sent for analysis is 500 grams, but, in this case, only 200 grams was sent. It is not disputed in this case that the Food Inspector purchased 600 grams, of biscuits, divided the same into three equal parts and sent one sample for analysis. It means it comes only to 200 grams. In Rajaldas Pamnani Vs. "State of Maharashtra 1975 (I) F.A.C. it has been held by the Supreme Court that the quantities mentioned under Rule 22 are required for correct analysis and shortage in quantity for analysis is not permitted by statute. The Supreme Court further observed that the High Court was not correct in convicting the accused in that case on analysis which was not in compliance with the provisions of the statute. Following that decision, hold that the requisite quantity as prescribed under rule 22 was not sent for analysis and, therefore, the case of the prosecution must fail.