State (Food Inspector, Town Panchayat, Eral) vs Beerbath and Company and Others

M.N. Moorthy, J.—A complaint was filed against the respondents for an offence under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, in C.C. No.

1611 of 1976 on the file of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tuticorin. Relying on the decision of Krishnaswami Reddy, J. in State by Public

Prosecutor v. Pandian Pilled & others 1979 L.W.C. 156, the learned Magistrate discharged the accused after examining the Food Inspector as a

witness.

The learned Public Prosecutor represents that this revision is filed to clarify the above decision of this Court. Krishnaswami Reddi, J., while

dismissing the appeal against acquittal observed-

I am 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. The learned Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded that addition of saccharin was of negligible quantity. This

being an appeal against the order of acquittal I do not find any compelling reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. With these observations,

this appeal is dismissed.

This decision was brought to the notice of Maheswaran, J. in State v. Harirama Nadar and another 1979 L.W. Cri. 81. The learned Judge made

the following observation:-

In Public Prosecutor v. Pandian Pillai. 1976 L.W.Cri. 156 Krishnaswami 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 R. 44G and R. 47 shows that addition of sacchrin in syrup is prohibited. With respect I must point out that I am not in agreement with the

observations of Krishnaswami 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.

Krishnaswami Reddy, J. was dealing with a case of acquittal. As the addition of saccharin was so negligible he thought there was no compelling

reason to set aside the order of acquittal. The observation made by him was peculiar to the facts and circumstances of that particular case. It was

not meant to be taken as an authority by the lower courts to throw out cases on the ground that adulteration is negligible. The conception of

''negligible'' quantity of adulteration may vary from person to person and it will lead to anomalous situations. Maheswaran, J. decision adheres to

the principles of administration of justice according to law and the lower courts will do well to follow his decision.

The Public Prosecutor brings to my notice that the provisions of S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act have not been complied

with in the instant case. According to the Bench decision of this Court reported in P.K. Moorthy v. Food Inspector, Kumhakonam Municipality

1979 L.W.Cri. 139, it is a mandatory provision and it should be complied with and non-compliance of the provisions makes the proceedings

illegal. With these observations the criminal revision by the State is dismissed.