State vs Harirama Nadar and Another

Maheswaran, J.—This revision is by the State against the acquittal of the respondents by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tuticorin of the offence under Ss. 7, 16(1) read with S. 2(1)(n) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The facts of the case are P.W. 1, the Food Inspector saw the 1st respondent with a syrup bottle for sale at the main road of Arumuganeri on 24th June, 1976. He served Ex. P-1 notice on the 1st respondent and purchased 600 ml of the syrup and sealed the contents in 3 bottles and sent one sample to the Analyst for analysis. The report of the Analyst showed that the sample contained 300 parts per million parts of saccharin and therefore, the revision petitioners were charged for the offence aforesaid.

The learned Magistrate found that there is nothing in the evidence of P.W. 1 to implicate the 2nd respondent and adverting to the report of the Analyst stated that the sample contained only 300 parts per million parts of saccharin and that the percentage is so negligible that no case is made out against the respondents and he discharged them. In discharging them he relied on the decision of this Court in Public Prosecutor v. Pandian Pillai 1976 L.W. (Crl.) 156.

Before me the learned Public Prosecutor contends that. Rule 44G and Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 have not been presumably brought to the notice of the Judge who rendered the decision and that once when adulteration is found the court cannot apply the maxim ''de minimis non curat lex'' (law does not concern itself about trifles). The learned Public Prosecutor relied on the ruling in State of Kerala v. Parameswaran 1975 Crl. L.J. 97 wherein the learned Judges of the Kerala High Court observed as follows:

The Act does not mean a distinction between cases coming under it on the basis of the degree of adulteration. It does not provide for aggravation of offence based on the extent of contamination. The offence and punishment are the same whether the adulteration is great or small. Food pollution, even if it be only to the slightest extent, if continued in practice, would adversely affect the health of every man, woman and child in the country. Hence, even marginal or borderline variations of the prescribed standards under the Act are matters of serious concern for all, and as public interest are involved in them, the maxim ''de minimis non curat lex'' (law does not concern itself about trifles) does not arise.

With great respect, I am in perfect agreement with the observations of the learned Judge of the Kerala High Court.

In Public Prosecutor v. Pandian Pillai 1976 L.W. (Crl.) 156 Krishnaswamy Reddy, J. stated that he was not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal for the reason that addition of saccharin was so negligible that no prudent officer will take action to prosecute the respondents. A reading of Rule 44G and Rule 47 shows that addition of saccharin in syrup is prohibited. With respect I must point out that I am not in agreement with the observations of Krishnaswamy Reddy, J., for the simple reason that the Act does not provide for exemption of marginal or borderline variation of the standards from the operation of the Act, and in such circumstances, to contend that the variation is negligible would virtually alter the standard itself fixed under the Act. As regards A-2 there is a clear finding that there is nothing in the evidence of P.W.1 to implicate him, therefore the order of discharge of A-2 is confirmed. The revision is partly allowed, and the order of discharge against A-1 is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin, who will take the case on his file and dispose it of afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment.