MADAN LAL Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Criminal Misc. No. 5718-M of 1987 and Criminal Misc. No. 7426-M of 1987 both, a much too simple point of law is involved for determination. The sample of carbonated water obtained by the Government Food Inspector from the accused petitioner was on analysis allegedly found : (i) deficient in prescribed sucrose content of 5 per cent, and also (ii) contained sachharin which was not indicated on the label appended to the carbonated water battles in terms of the rules Govt. Food Inspector launched the prosecution vide complaint Annexure PI and the learned trial court initiated proceedings against the accused petitioner or its basis. In both the petitions it has been asserted that 5 per cent sucrose content is prescribed for sweetened carbonated water and not ordinary carbonated water and that sachharin having not been added to the carbonated water for sweetening it, its detection in carbonated water sample obtained from the accused petitioner is of little consequence. Since the contents of complaint annexure P1 do not disclose the commission of a criminal offence by the accused petitioners, the complaint merits quashing.

(2.) I have heard Shri H.S. Sawhney, Advocate, for the petitioners, Shri H.S. Brar, Advocate, with H.P. Singh. Advocate, for the respondent Union Territory, Chandigarh, and have carefully gone through the material on record.

(3.) FURTHERMORE , saccharin not exceeding 100 p.m. could legitimately be mixed and could, therefore, be found in carbonated water aforesaid. The relevant rule A.O1.O1 of the Rules ibid reads :-