Criminal proceedings for violation of food adulteration rules can be quashed where the violation is merely technical and not harmful to human consumption, and the permissible limit has been increased by an amendment to the rule.

( 1 ) THE petitioner by way of this petition under Section 482, Cr. F. C. is seeking to set aside the order dated 6. 9. 1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Cr. Rev. No. 20/1997 and is also seeking for quashing the proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.

( 2 ) THE respondent has filed a complaint agianst the petitioner under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The subject matter of the prosecution is a seizure of sample of special khas SUPARI on 13. 6. 1991 by the Food Inspector. The sample on being examined by the Public Analyst was found to contain saccharin to the extent of 3506 P. P. M. , which is violative of Rule 47. During pendency of the criminal prosecution. Rule 47 was amended and the permissible limit of saccharin has been increased to 4000 P. P. M. as it has been found not to be harmful for human consumption.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that since the Rule 47 has been amended raising the permissible limit of saccharin to 4000 P. P. M. and the violation is only a technical violation, the criminal proceedings pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate should be quashed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sri Krishan Gopal Sharma and Am. v. Government of N. C. T. of Delhi, J. T. 1996 (5) 102 in support of the said contention. Paras 13, 14 and 15 of the said judgment are relevant for the purpose of the present petition and they are extracted and reproduced hereunder:

"13. In our view, 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 valid 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. Hence, the impugned decision of the High Court in dismissing the applications under Section 482, Cr. P. C. cannot be held to be unjustified. "

"14. It, however, appears to us 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 Constitution Bench decision in Tejani s case (supra) it has been indicated that in order to prevent unmerited leniency in the matter of awarding sentence for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Legislature by amendment has incorporated the provision of minimum sentence. But it has also been indicated that the Court,