BIRBAL DASS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHERE the label on a bottle of whisky proclaims its alcoholic strength to be 75-proof but is found by the Public Analyst to be only 72,30- proof, does this constitute an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (referred to hereafter as the Act')?. Herein lies the controversy forwarded by I. S. Tiwana, J. for consideration by a larger Bench.

(2.) THE petitioner-Birbal Dass is a licenced English Whisky/wire Vendor at Sefidon. On June 12, 1986 a sample of Empire Fine Whisky was purchased from him by the Food Inspector, which, on analysis was found by the Public Analyst to have an alcoholic strength of 72 30 -proof instead of 75-proof as stated on the label of the bottle. A notice was cousequently served upon the petitioner under Section 13 (2) and this was later followed by a complaint being filed against him under Section 16 (i) (a) of the Act It is for the quashing of this complaint that the petitioner moved this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the plea that as the Act prescribes no standard for alcoholic strength, no case is made cut against the petitioner for proceedings under the Act.

(3.) SUPPORT for the proposition canvassed is indeed forthcoming from the judgment of this Court in Criminal Misc. 5600 M of 1981 (Chaman Lal and Ors. v. State of Punjab, Crl Misc. 5600-M of 1981.) decided on July 22, 1982. The sample taken in that case was of Flying Whisky'. According to the label thereon, its alcoholic strength was 75 proof, but on analysis, it was found to be 78,87 proof. The proceedings iritiated against the petitioner in that case, under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Act were quashed on the ground that no standard of alcoholic strenth had been proscribed, under the -Act. This was later followed by Surinder Singh J. in Tar Balbir Singh v. Sate of Punjab, (1986) 2 C, L. J. (Candcr) 217. Here again, the case pertained to a sample taken from a bottle of whisky The label stated that the alcoholic strength to be 75proof, but it was found by the Public Analyst to be 78. 45~ proof. The complaint in this case too was quashed again on the ground that to standard of alcoholic strength had been prescribed under the Act.