AMRIT AND COMPANY Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of CRM-M No. 35297 of 1999 and CRM-M No. 900 of 2005 as they both arise out of a common complaint filed against the petitioners being the seller and manufacturer of Bharat Iodized Salt. Vide orders dated 6.1.2005, CRM-M No. 900 of 2005 filed by the manufacturer was ordered to be heard along with CRM-M No. 35297 of 1999.

(2.) THIS matter has been sent to the Division Bench by an order of reference dated 07.10.2004. The learned Singly Judge doubted the correctness of the view expressed by two learned Single Benches in Baldev Raj v. State of Punjab, 2002(3) RCR(Criminal) 483 and Amarjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(2) RCR(Criminal) 763. In these cases it was held that Salt was a flavouring agent covered by Rule 43(5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and not food and thus held not to attract the provisions of Rule 43 of the said rules. In case of Baldev Raj (supra) the label mentioned 'Shudh Khadya Namak' while in the second case the label was 'Refined Iodized Salt Pure Free Following'.

(3.) IT would be seen in sub clause (b) of sub section (v) 'flavouring matter' and 'condiments' have been included in the definition of food. Rule 43 of the Act reads as follows :-