RAM LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint has been filed alleging that sample of chewing tobacco taken from the petitioner was found to be adulterated in view of the report of the Public Analyst that it contained 6.09% of sand and silica which was more than the normal value and thereby the petitioner committed offence under Section 7(2) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that since no standard has been prescribed for chewing tobacco, assumption that contents of sand and silica were "more than the normal value" is untenable and on that basis, prosecution cannot be launched.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. No doubt, in M.V. Krishnan Nambissam v. State of Kerala, AIR 1966 SC 1676, it was observed that wherever rule making authority intended to prescribe a specific standard for the contents of a product, it has been so provided. It was held that standard of milk could not be applied to the standard of butter-milk. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of this observation, it must be held that only those articles of food can be held to be adulterated for which standard is prescribed and for any article of food for which no standard is prescribed, no prosecution was maintainable under the law.