KAILASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 26th March '79, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by which, he maintained the conviction of the petitioner for the offence u/s. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, hereinafter, "the Act"), but reduced the sentence from 1 year's SI to that of 6 months, and maintained the sentence of fine as awarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was ordered to undergo the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the lower court.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated, the facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition, are that on 5th Jan. '76, at about 1 PM. Ramgopal Sharma, Food Inspector, visited the house of the petitioner and found the petitioner selling 'paan-ka-Masala', which, he suspected to be adulterated. After disclosing his identity, he purchased 600 gms. of the said 'paan-ka-Masala' from the petitioner, for the purpose of analysis. He made payment to the petitioner for the said Masala. Then, he divided the Masala into three equal parts and filled them in dry and clean bottles. The bottles were properly sealed, and one of these bottles, was given to the petitioner. He, thereafter, seized about 8 30 packets of 'paan-ka-Masala', which were lying at the house of the petitioner, Kailash After sealing those bottles, he entrusted them to the petitioner's custody. The sample was then sent to public analyst, for examination, who, latar on, found the said sample to be adulterated due to presence of saccharin in it, the use of which was prohibited u/r. 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, hereinafter "the Rules" ). After obtaining sanction for prosecution the Food Inspector lodged a complaint in the court of CJM, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The learned CJM. after completing the trial, found the accused petitioner guilty of the offence u/s. 7/16 of the Act, and sentenced him to 1 year's SI and a fine of a Rs. 2, 000/ -. Against that judgment, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, who partly accepted it and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, reduced the sentence of imprisonment as mentioned above.

(3.) MR. Mantri based his argument on the decision in The State of Maharashtra vs. Ranjitbhai-Babubhai Suratwalla (l ). In that case, the accused was prosecuted u/s 7/16 of the Act and the charge-sheet that the 'supari' sold by him was found to have contained saccharin. The public analyst in that case reported that the 'supari' was adulterated on the ground that it contained saccharin, a non-permitted artificial sweetener. It was hold in that case that the conviction of the accused was not sustainable, as saccharin was not a non-permitted artificial sweetener provided it conformed to the standard laid down in the rules. The accused was acquitted in that case. In the present case, there is no blanket ban on the use of saccharin as an artificial sweetener for preparing *paan-ka-Masala' as pointed out in Rule-47 of the Rules. The law has permitted the use of saccharin. But, it should be in accordance with the standard prescribed or laid down in Appendix-B to the Rules. The prosecution in this case, has failed to prove that the use of saccharin was not in accordance with the standard laid down in Appendix-B. The statement of the public analyst is of no help to the prosecution. He has only opined that the sample sent to him for examination, had contained saccharin. It is not disputed by the petitioner that he had used saccharin in preparing 'paan-ka-Masala'. The label which the petitioner had used and put on the container of 'paan-ka-Masala', had a mention of this fact that saccharin was mixed in that. All the conditions of Rule-47 of the Rules were fulfilled, and there is no proof that the saccharin used by the petitioner was not in accordance with the standard laid down in Appendix B. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the petitioner, and the learned Magistrate also has erred in coming to the conclusion that the 'paan-ka-Masala' had contained saccharin which was a non-permitted artificial sweetener. The learned Sessions Judge also has committed error in agreeing with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate. The conviction of the petitioner, passed by the learned lower courts, cannot, therefore, be maintained.