IMPORTANT POINT
The only offence committed by the accused amounts to technical violation of the mandate of Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, as existing prior to its amendment in 1993, for adding saccharin to the extent of 2000 and 2450 ppm. in the Pan Masala and Mouth Freshner.

Headnote:Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Section 7/16-Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955-Rules 44(g) and 47 prior to its amendment in 1993-Samples of Pan Masala and Mouth Freshner lifted in 1989-Saccharin contents as found by Public Analyst in samples were in violation of existing Rules 44(g) and 47-Subsequent change of permissible limit of saccharin in Pan Masala and Mouth Freshner-Only offence committed by appellants amounts to technical violation of mandate of Rule 47 for adding saccharin to the extent of 2000 and 2450 ppm-Such addition of saccharin cannot be held to be injurious to health-However, initiation of criminal cases against accused cannot be held to be without justification-In the special facts of these cases, a deterent punishment of imprisonment not called for-Imposition of fine will meet ends of justice.
       Held : At the relevant time, saccharin content in Pan Masala and Mouth Freshner to the extent of 2000 and 2450 ppm as found by the Analyst was not permissible under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. We have indicated that such Rule was vaild and operative at the relevant time. Hence, there had been violation of the Food Adulteration Act and the Rules framed thereunder in selling Pan Masala and Mouth Freshner with saccharin content to the extent of 2000 and 2450 ppm. Hence, the complaints made by the Health Department of Delhi Administration and initiation of criminal cases against the accused cannot be held to be without justification. It cannot also be contended that on the face of the complaint, no offence was prima facie committed. (Para 10)
       Further held that even if the complaint is accepted to be correct, the only offence committed by the appellants amounts to technical violation of the mandate of Rule 47 for adding saccharin to the extent of 2000 and 2450 ppm in the Chutki Pan Masala and Mouth Freshner. Such addition of saccharin cannot be held to be injurious to health because, considering later findings on research and analysis on the effect of saccharin on human system, addition of saccharin to the extent 8000 ppm in Pan Masala has been allowed by amending Rule 47. The articles sold are not alleged to be injurious to health and such allegations, even if made, cannot be accepted. There is no allegation that any other injurious substance was added to the articles sold making them potentially health hazards. It is also not the case that Pan Masala and Mouth Freshner were of inferior quality and sub-standard. In a case like this, the offence committed is on account of technical violation of Rule 47. It should be emphasised that strict adherence to Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules framed thereunder should be insisted and enforced for safeguarding the interest of consumers of articles of food. In the special facts of these cases, it appears to us that a deterent punishment of imprisonment is not called for and imposition of fine will meet the ends of justice. The criminal cases were initiated on the basis of samples taken in 1987. The accused appellants have already faced the ordeal of criminal trials for a number of years. In the aforesaid circumstances, further agony of criminal trials need not be prolonged. Conclusion of the criminal cases will also save time and expenditure of the respondent. In that view of the matter, we direct for quashing the criminal cases in question on payment of costs at Rs.7500 in each of these appeals as in our view, on conviction of the appellants in the criminal cases initiated against them, such fine would have met the ends of justice. (Paras 11 & 12)
       (ii) Interpretation of Statutes-Prevention of Food Adulteration Act-Rules framed thereunder-Strict adherence should be insisted and enforced for safeguarding interest of consumers of articles of food. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

G.N. Ray, J.-Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Order dated 15.2.1995 passed by the Delhi High Court in Criminal Misc (Main) Petition No. 2802 of 1994 and Criminal Misc. (Main) Petition No. 3202 of 1994 dismissing the application of the appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the Criminal case No. 149 of 1988 and 42 and 1990 pending in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1934 (sic 1954) initiated on the basis of the complaint made by the Local Health Authority of the Delhi Administration is under challenge.

3. Criminal Case No. 149 of 1988 relates to the sample of Chutki Pan Masala purchased from accused No. 1 Murari Lal Gupta, partner of the accused No.3 M/s. Lal Chand Gupta, and manufactured and supplied by accused No.4 M/s. K.K. Karyalaya, of which accused No.5 Krishna Gopal Sharma is the nominee. Case No. 42 of 1990 relates to sample of Chutki Mouth Freshner purchased by Food Inspector D.P. Singh on 21.8.1989 from accused No. 1 Krishna Gopal Sharma, the nominee of the manufacturer M/s. K.K. Karyalaya. According to the prosecution case both the samples of Chutki Pan Masala and Chutki Mouth Freshner were analysed by the Public Analyst, Delhi and the Analyst found both the samples as adulterated because it contained saccharin to the extent of 2000 p.p.m. in the first sample and a 2450 ppm in the second sample. It may be stated here that at the relevant time when the said samples were purchased, under the existing Rule 44(g) and Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, the saccharin contents as found by the Public Analyst in the samples were in violation of the Rules.

4. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate in dismissing the applications made under Section 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure held, inter alia, that although from 9th November, 1993, Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 had undergo a change and saccharin to the extent of 8000 ppm in pan masala has been permitted under the amended Rule 47, even then accused were not entitled to get any benefit of subsequent amendment of Rule 47. As at the relevant time, the accused had sold the Pan Masala and Mouth Freshner in violation of the mandate under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the prosecution initiated on account of such violation was legal and justified. The learned Judge relied on the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Charanjit Lal1 wherein similar contentions were negatived by the Full Bench.

5. Against the said decision, the appellants moved the Delhi High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia praying for quashing the said criminal cases. By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that at the relevant time, when the samples were taken and analysed, the saccharin content as found by the analyst in the samples was not permissible. Hence, the offence under the Food Adulteration Act had been committed and consideration of subsequent change of the permissible limit of saccharin in Pan Masala and Mouth Freshner was not germane. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the Misc. Cases arising out of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code with an observation that it would open to the accused petitioners to urge the implication of subsequent change in the Rules by permitting user of saccharin upto the extent of 8000 ppm in Pan Masala at the hearing of the criminal cases.

6. Mr. Sanghi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, has strongly contended that the extent of saccharin since found by the analyst cannot be held as injurious to health because on the basis of further research and analysis about the effect of saccharin on human body, it has been ascertained that presence of saccharin upto a reasonable limit was not at all injurious to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 933

IMPORTANT POINTThe only offence committed by the accused amounts to technical violation of the mandate of Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, as existing prior to its amendment in 1993, for adding saccharin to the extent of 2000 and 2450 ppm. in the Pan Masala and Mouth Freshner.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
The only offence committed by the accused amounts to technical violation of the mandate of Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, as existing prior to its amendment in 1993, for adding saccharin to the extent of 2000 and 2450 ppm. in the Pan Masala and Mouth Freshner.