AMAR NATH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant criminal revision under Sec. 397/401 Cr.PC., the petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.1.2006 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur (for short, 'the trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 549/1993, whereby the trial Court framed the charge against the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 7(ii) (v)/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, "the Act" hereinafter). Aggrieved by the order impugned framing the charge, the petitioner has filed the instant criminal revision.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Carefully gone through the Impugned order. I have also gone though the statements of PW1 S.K. Patni, Public Analyst and PW2 Shyam Lai, Food Inspector.

(3.) It Is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that PW1 S.K. Patni, Public Analyst categorically stated that the sample taken from the petitioner was misbranded only on the ground that It contained propyl gallate, otherwise according to PW1 S.K. Patni, the Public Analyst, the sample conformed to the prescribed standard. Learned counsel submits that rule 59 of the. Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, "the Rules, 1955" hereinafter) provides that anti-oxidants not exceeding in concentration mentioned against each, may be added to edible oils and fats except ghee and butter, ethyl gallate and propyl gallate. So far as propyl gallate is concerned, the prescribed limit to add anti-oxidant propyl gallate has been prescribed to be 0.01 per cent. In the instant case, the Public Analyst has not specifically stated that the propyl gallate exceeds the permissible limit, i.e., 0.01 per cent and, therefore, no offence punishable under Sec. 7(ii)v/16 of the Act is made out against the petitioner.