Honble 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. Kar- yalaya, 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 p.p.m. 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 p.p.m. 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 vs. Charanjit Lal (1), 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 p.p.m. 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 health. Precisely for such chang

Click Here to Read the rest of this document