DELHI HIGH COURT
S. Muralidhar, J.
State —Petitioner
versus
Vinod Sharma —Respondent
Cri. L.P. No. 735 of 2013
Decided on 15.4.2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Rule 55 of the PFA Rules was itself reflective of the fact that in refined sugar the presence of sulphur dioxide (SO2) as a preservative is permissible to the extent of 40 PPM.

Headnote:Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 — Section 2(ia), (a), (b) & (m), 16(1) read with 7 — Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 — Rule 32 (e) —Acquittal — Complaint filed after six months delay — Opinion of Public Analyst not supported by Central Food Laboratory — HELD — No illegality in acquittal.

       Held: The learned trial Court has noticed that in the report of the CFL there was no indication of the presence of any vegetable oil and therefore, to this extent the opinion of the PA was not supported by the CFL. In para 13 of the impugned judgment it is pointed out in the report of the Director, CFL the basis for holding that the sample was adulterated has not been indicated.

        The report showed the presence of S02 to the extent of 25 PPM but it was not indicated as to why the sample should be held to be adulterated. Rule 55 of the PFA Rules was itself reflective of the fact that in refined sugar the presence of sulphur

       dioxide (SO2) as a preservative is permissible to the extent of 40 PPM.

       The opinion formed by the learned trial Court that the test of doubt should go to the Respondent, cannot be faulted.

       Result: Petition dismissed