MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KHANDWA Vs. SHANKAR LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the appeal preferred by the Municipal Council, Khandwa against acquittal under Sec. 7(1) 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, of the three respondents accused viz. Shankar Lal son of Harirain and Kishanlal, both proprietors of the hotel known as Kailash Uphar Garh, and Shankar Lal son of Kachru, Manager of the said Uphar Garh.

(2.) For purposes of the present appeal it is no longer disputed that the two particular respondents-accused Shankerlal and Kishanlal, were the partners and joint proprietors of the Kailash Uphar Grah and the Shankar Lal son of Kachru was the manager of the said Uphargrah at the relevant time. It is also not in dispute that on 20 1-1976 Food Inspector Dilawar Hussain had purchased the sample of particular sweets viz Imarli for purposes of analysis by the Public Analyst and that the Public Analyst, vide his report Ex. P-10, dated 24-1-1967 had opined that the sample of Imarli was of light orange colour in appearance and that "the sample contravened the provisions of PFA Act and Rules 1955 as it contained coal-tar dye, the use of which was prohibited in all articles of food." The trial court opined, in the light of Rule 28 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, that the report of the Public Analyst was vague, inasmuch as, it was not mentioned therein that the orange colour were prohibited for use. According to the trial Courts, orange colour was included in red colour which was permissible for use in sweets as per Rule 28 of PFA Rules. Accordingly, the respondents-accused were acquitted.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant-Municipal Council has urged that orange colour was not covered under red colour and that only colour permitted, were those which were mentioned in Rule 28 of PFA Rules ; and since, the sample of Imarli was not found to contain the permissible colour, the respondents-accused were liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offence in question.