TILAK RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TILAK Raj, a shopkeeper of Ferozepore Cantt., has challenged his conviction under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read, with Section 7, thereof and sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000 in default further rigorous imprisonment for nine months.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is simple and straight. It became all the more so by the stand taken by the Petitioner. On 26th of June, 1974, the Petitioner was found to be in possession of two crates (48 bottles), containing a substance which was orange in colour and stated to be sweetened carbonated water. Out of these Dr. S.K. Gupta (P.W. 1), the Food Inspector, purchased 9 bottles, took samples therefrom and sent the same to the Public Analyst. On analysis, the Public Analyst found that the orange coloured sweetened carbonated water sent to him contained no sugar at all, whereas it should have contained a minimum of five per cent. On that premises, the Petitioner was complained against, tried, convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. The order was maintained in appeal before the Sessions Court. This is how the matter has come up to this Court in revision.

(3.) ELABORATING the contention, it was pointed out that carbonated water would only mean potable water impregnated with carbon dioxide. In order to become sweetened carbonated water, it has to contain (carbonated water may or may not) a sweetening agent of any of the kinds mentioned in the above -quoted items namely sugar, liquid glucose, dextrose, monohydrate, invert sugar, fructose , honey, saccharin not exceeding 100 p.p.m. fruit and vegetable extractives. The other items mentioned therein are flavouring, colouring or preserving agents. The sweetening agents are only these and sugar is just one of them. It was pointed out that it was saccharin at the level of 100 parts per million which was present in the sample, but its percentage was not disclosed in the analysis. On the other hand, analytically it was disclosed that sugar was absent and its absence per se was taken to make it fall of the minimum of 5 per cent prescribed. On that analysis, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Public Analyst has nowhere stated that the saccharin of the permissive kind was below the minimum percentage as prescribed in the item. Absence of sugar per se from the sample was no crime as the Petitioner could have chosen any of the sweetening agents above -referred to.