STATE OF ASSAM Vs. SUNDAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) About 11 years back, precisely on 2-8-72 the District Food Inspector of Jorhat, visited the Ice Candy factory of Gopi Chand Agarwalla in Golaghat town and purchased 900 grams of ice-candy from the Manager Sundar Das Agarwalla for the purpose of analysis. It was divided in three equal parts, one part was sent for analysis by the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst found that the sample of ice-candy was mixed with 'saccharin' as sweetening element, which was violative of Item No. A.07.04 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Learned trial Court rightly reached the conclusion that the Ice-candy was an article of food for human consumption. Naturally so, as it is one of the items enumerated in Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, for short 'the Rules'. R. 44(g) of the Rules provides that any article of food which contains any artificial "sweetener" except where such artificial sweetener is permitted in accordance with the standards laid down in Appendix B to the Rules, amounts to admixture of prohibited materials in that food. It goes without saying that saccharin is permissible to be used in some of the items in accordance with the standard laid down in Appendix 'B'. However, when the artificial sweetener is permitted to be used in any food under 'the Rules', the container of such food must be labelled with an adhesive declaratory label stating that the food contains admixture of artificial sweetener. R. 47 clearly sets out that saccharin or any other artificial Sweetener shall not be added to any article of food, except where the addition of such artificial sweetener is permitted in accordance with the standard laid down in Appendix 'B'. In the instant case Sundar Das Arora was the Manager of the Ice Candy Factory. The trial Court rightly reached the conclusion that the addition of 'saccharin' in ice candy was violative of R. 44(g) read with R. 47 of the Rules and that a person violating the provisions was liable to be convicted under S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for violating the provisions of S. 7(v) of "the Act". However, learned trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that the District Food Inspector contravened R. 22 of the Rules in sending lesser quantity of sample to the Public Analyst than what was specified in the Rule. Of course, learned Magistrate was fortified in his conclusion by a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1975 SC 189, Rajaldas G. Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra.

(2.) The relevant extracts of R. 22 of "the Rules" are set out below :

(3.) There was a general impression at all relevant time, that the Rule was mandatory in the sense breach of the rule by itself was fatal, so much so that any deviation or breach of the rule must result in acquittal of the accused. It will be seen on perusal of R. 22 that the Rule making authority has prescribed the quantum of food which is required to be sent to the Public Analyst.