Parmod Kumar vs State of Haryana

A. S. Nehra, J.

Parmod Kumar, petitioner has filed his revision petition against the order of conviction and sentence. He was proceeded against under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the complaint of the Food Inspector.

The charge against the petitioner is that on 2871982 at his shop at Bus Stand Meham, he kept in his possession five ''Dallas'' of carbonated water for public sale which on analysis, was found adulterated inasmuch as it contained 300 PPM of sacchrine as against the prescribed maximum limit of 100 PPM.

The sample was taken by the Food Inspector in the presence of Dr. (Mrs.) J, C. Chanda, Deputy Chief Medical Officer (Health). Food Inspector purchased nine bottles out of the aforesaid stock, mixed their contents divided them into three equal parts and sent one part to the Public Analyst, whose report Ex. PD disclosed the adulteration.

At the trial, Sant Lal. Food Inspector appeared as P 1, while Dr. (Mrs.) 1. Chanda appeared as PW2. PW1 and PW2 supported the prosecution case. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused petitioner denied all the allegations against him and said :

"I am a watch repairer. I have no connection with the shop from which the sample was taken. That shop belongs to my younger brother, Ramesh Kumar and the licence is also in his name. Carbonated water was purchased from Thakar Dass Sindwani. On the same day, his sample was also taken which too was found adulterated. I have no connection with the carbonated water.

Mr. Gurmohan Singh, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the sample taken was of carbonated water sweetened with saccharin, that no standard of carbonated water sweetened with sacchrin has been fixed, that saccharin is a food and that its mixture with carbonated water cannot be held to be injurious to health and as such no offence had been committed by the petitioner.

The learned counsel appearing for the State in reply urged that as the sample contained 300 PPM saccharin instead of 100 PPM sachharin, the food sample was substandard and the accusedpetitioner was rightly convicted and sentenced.

Carbonated water means potable water impregnated, with carbon dioxide under pressure and may contain any of the following singly or in combination :

"Sugar, liquid glucose, dextrose monohydrate, invert(mert) sugar fructose, honey, saccharin not exceeding 100 PPM, fruits and vegetables extractives and permitted flavouring, colouring matter preservatives emulsifying and stabilizing agents citric acid, (Furmaric acid and sorbitol), tartaric acid, phosphoric acid, lactic acid ascorbic acid, malic Acid, (edible gums such as guar, karaya, arabic, carobean, furcellaran, tragacanth, gum ghetti), edible gelatin, albumin, licorice and its derivatives salts, of sodium, calcium and magnesium, vitamins, caffeine not exceeding 200 parts per million, and quinine salts not exceeding 100 parts per million (expressed as quinine sulphate) :

Provided that in the case of sweetended carbonated waters other than tonic water and dry gingerable the percentage of (total sugars expressed as sucrose) shall not be less than five."

The aforesaid definition shows that no standard of carbonated water sweetened with saccharin has been provided. It is not disputed, that saccharin is a food. An article of food will be considered as adulterated if its quality or purity falls below the prescribed standard or its contents are present in quantities which are in excess of prescribed limit of variability It is not the case of the prosecution that saccharin effects injuriously the health of a person. The carbonated water found in possession of the accused petitioner contained saccharin 300 PPM which was added to sweeten the same. There is nothing in the report of the Public Analyst to show that the presence of 300 PPM saccharin in the sample was injurious to health. Thus the carbonated water found in possession of the accused petitioner could not be held to be of substandard quality. This revision petition is, therefore, accepted and the conviction and sentence of the accusedpetitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. His bail bond is discharged.