Thummalapudi Venkata Gopala Rao vs The State

This is a petition filed u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requesting this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and one Puvvada Ramaseshagiri Rao in CC. No. 83 of 1984 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gannavaram by the Food Inspector, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

The petitioner is the second accused in the calendar case while Mr. Puvvada Ramaseshagiri Rao is the first accused therein.

The petitioner carries on the business of manufacturing "Sugandhi Supari" with its brand, "Anjali". Supari is sold in retail and retail dealers are appointed by the petitioners. The first accused is one such dealer. On 18-1-1984 at about 5.00 p.m. the Food Inspector, Machilipatnam visited the shop of the first accused situate at Krishnapuram, Vutyuru Taluk and purchased the needed quantity of Supari from his shop for the purpose of analysis after observing the necessary formalities. On analysis of the sample by the public Analyst, Hyderabad, he was of the opinion that the sample was adulterated on account of the presence of saccharin therein. The Food Inspector, thereupon, filed a complaint against both the accused u/Ss. 16(1) and 7(i)(v) read with S. 2(ia) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, herein after referred to as the "Act" and R. 47 of the Rules made thereunder. The complaint having been taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gannavaram, the above petition was filed for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

Sri Varaprasada Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that mere presence of saccharin in the sample does not make it an offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act or the rules made under the Act permits addition of saccharin to any article of food so long as it conforms to the standards laid down in Appendix ''B''.

Rule 47, may, therefore, be usefully extracted :

Rule 47 :- Addition of artificial sweetener to be mentioned on the label : Saccharin or any other artificial sweetener shall not be added to any article of food, except where the addition of such artificial sweetener is permitted in accordance with the standards laid down in Appendix ''B'' and where any artificial sweetener is added to any food, the container of such food shall be labelled with an adhesive declaratory label which shall be in the form given below :

"This - (name of food) contains an admixture of - (name of the artificial sweetener)".

The Rule permits addition of saccharin to any article of food if the same is in accordance with the standards laid down in Appendix ''B''. It is not denied that the container of the sample collected is labelled with an adhesive declaratory label in the prescribed form. The standard prescribed for saccharin in Appendix ''B'' is covered by A.07.10 and the same runs thus :

"A.07.10. Saccharin Sodium :- Commonly known as soluble saccharin, having an empirical formula as C7H4NNaO3, SHO2 and molecular weight as 241.2 shall be the material which is soluble at 20 degree C in 1.5 parts of water and 50 parts of alcohol (95 per cent); and shall contain not less than 98 per cent and not more than the equivalent of 100.5 per cent of SH4O3, NSN1 calculated with reference to the substance dried in constant weight at 105 degree C, assay being carried out as presented in Indian Pharmacopoeia. It shall not contain more than 2 p.p.m. of arsenic and 10 p.p.m. of lead. The melting point of saccharin isolated from material as per Indian Pharmacopoeia method shall be between 225 degree C and 226 degree C. The loss on drying the material at 105 degree C shall not be less than 12.0 per cent and not more than 16.0 per cent of its weight.

The material shall satisfy the tests of identification and shall conform to the limit tests for free acid or alkali, ammonium compounds and parasulpa moylbenzoate as mentioned in the Indian Pharmacopoeia."

It, therefore, follows that the mere presence of saccharin in or addition of saccharin to "supari" does not per se make it an offence punishable under the Act unless it is in breach of the standards prescribed. The report of the Public Analyst merely reads that the sample contained saccharin and was therefore adulterated. It does not indicate that the presence of saccharin in the sample was in breach of the standards prescribed. The Public Analyst does not seem to have carried out the necessary tests to offer his opinion as required under Appendix ''B''. I, therefore, quash the proceedings initiated not only against the petitioner but also against the accused in the Calendar Case in the interests of justice.

I must also observe that the view taken by me derives support from the decisions rendered in State of Maharashtra v. Ranjitbhai Babubhai Suratwalla 1979 FAJ 231 v. State of Rajasthan 1985 FAJ 302 .

The decision of the Supreme Court in Pyarali K. Tejani Vs. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange and Others, , relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor was adverted to in State of Maharashtra v. Ranjitbhai Babubhai Suratwalla 1979 FAJ 231 (supra) and rightly distinguished. The reasoning adopted by Mehta, J. in the said decision applies with equal force to the facts of the instant case.

Petition allowed.