Narsingu Ramulu vs The State

This revision is preferred against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda in Crl.A. No. 25/84 dated 25-4-1985 confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C. No. 103/82 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class Nalgonda in judgment dated 20-3-1984.

The facts that led to this revision are as follows :

The Food Inspector, Nalgonda District filed a complaint against this revision petitioner who is A-1 and two others for an offence punishable under Sections 2(ia)(a)(b)(c), 7(i); rules 44(g), 5 appendix B, R.A. 29-01 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules thereunder r/w Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954.

The allegation against this accused is that on 28-8-1981 he was found selling toddy in Shop No. 4 situated in Ramagiri locality, Nalgonda. The proprietors of that shop are A-2 and A-3 i.e. Licensed Dealers. The sample was taken in three bottles and after observing all the formalities, one of those bottles was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst sent his report No. 381/81 dated 11-9-1981, giving his opinion that the sample contains saccharin.

The Food Inspector filed this complaint against the three accused for adulterating toddy. The two lower courts found that addition of saccharin is adulteration and therefore liable for conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and accordingly convicted them for various periods of sentence and fine also.

We are, now, concerned with A-1. He was found guilty u/s 16(1)(a)(i) r.w. Section 2(ia)(b)(c), 7(i); rules 44(g), 5 Appendix-B, R.A. 29-01 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and while convicting him thereunder sentenced him to suffer R. I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to suffer S. I for 6 months. Against this conviction and sentence, an appeal is preferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda and the learned Sessions Judge in his judgment in Crl.A. No. 25/84 dated 25-4-1985 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and the sentence passed by the trial court. Against this judgment, this revision case is filed by A-1 only.

The point that arises for consideration in this revision is : Whether the judgment of the lower court suffers from any illegality of from material irregularity. In other words, whether the sample taken by the Food Inspector in this case can be said to be adulterated inviting conviction under the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act ?

We see in Appendix B, R.A. 29-01. ''Toddy'' means the sap from coconut, date toddy palm tree or any other kind of palm tree which has undergone alcoholic fermentation. It shall be white cloudy in appearance which sediments on storage and shall profess characteristic favour derived from the sap and fermentation without addition of extraneous alcohol. It shall be free from added colouring matter, dirt, other foreign matter or any other ingredient injurious to health. It shall also be free from chloral Hydrate and paraldehyde.

It shall also conform to the following standard, namely

(a) Alcoholic content ... Not less than 5 per cent (v/V)

(b) total acid as tartaric acid (pressed in terms of 100 litres of absolute alcohol) ... Not more than 100 Grams.

(c) Volatile acid as acetic acid (expressed in terms of 100 litres of absolute alcohol) ....... Not more than 100 Grams. This being the standard for the toddy, we see from the Analyst Report that the sample toddy conform to the standards mentioned above but contained, in addition, saccharin.

Now, the question before us is whether the toddy with addition of saccharin can be described as adulterated ?

Saccharin is admittedly not a harmful substance. The standard of toddy as mentioned in Rule A 29-01 in Appendix B only mentions that harmful ingredients should not be there as addition to toddy. When once we come to the conclusion that Saccharin is not harmful substance the addition of saccharin cannot be treated that the same would violate the prescription of standard mentioned in Rule A 29-01 of Appendix-B of the Act with regard to toddy. Even in non-alcoholic beverages it is permitted to have saccharin not exceeding 100 PPM. Here in this case, the Analyst did not give the percentage of saccharin in the toddy sample. Therefore, I do not think that addition of saccharin in toddy would make the toddy an adulterated one as per the standards prescribed under the rules of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

In this view of the matter, the revision case is allowed setting aside the judgment of the lower Appellate Court. The conviction and sentence passed against this revision petitioner, who is A-1 before the trial court, are set aside. Fine if any paid is ordered to be refunded to him.

Revision allowed.