LEKH RAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER 'fruit -cream' is a commodity identical with icecream and therefore, within the ambit of the standard prescribed for its purity by item A. 11,02.08 of Appendix 'B' of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, is the somewhat interesting question which falls for consideration in this criminal revision.

(2.) AS would be evident the issue is primarily legal and the facts would therefore, pale into relative insignificance, nevertheless reference albeit briefly is inevitable. On July 23, 1975, Dr. Satya Nand, the Food Inspector of the Municipal Committee, Amritsar, visited the Hyderabad Sindh Hotel, Hall Bazar, Amritsar where the Petitioner representing himself as the Manager of the concern was present. About 2 1/2 Kgs. of fruit -cream contained in a brass vessel was found lying in the refrigerator, out of which the Food Inspector purchased 900 grams as a sample for analysis on payment of Rs. 10 vide receipt Ex. PB. In the relevant, documents - executed in accordance with the rules with regard to the purchase etc. thereof, the commodity was expressly described as fruit -cream. Even when the sample was forwarded to the Public Analyst, it was so described. However, the Public Analyst, in performing its analysis applied thereto the standard prescribed for ice -cream, fulfill and chocolate -ice -cream in item A. 11.02.08 of Appendix 'B' of the prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and as the same did not conform strictly thereto, he opined that it was adulterated. In the complaint filed by the Food Inspector, as a consequence of the aforesaid opinion of the Public Analyst, it was again in terms specified therein that what had been purchased was a sample of fruit -cream from the premises of the Petitioner, where he carried on the business of selling fruit -cream etc.

(3.) IN appeal, however, the argument that what was taken as a sample from the Petitioner was of fruit -cream only, was specifically raised and it was contended that since no standard in terms was prescribed for this commodity in the Act or the Rules, the Petitioner could not be convicted and in any case item A. 11.02.08 had no application to his case and could not be foisted upon fruit -cream to maintain his conviction. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, did not accept this contention and took the view that fruit -cream could well be brought within the ambit of item A.ll.02.08 by conveniently labelling it as fruit ice -cream. He concluded as follows: