Non-conformity with the prescribed standard makes the article an adulterated food.

This is an appeal against acquittal. The appellant the Food Inspector, Kozhikode Municipality had filed a complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Central Act XXXVII of 1954) against the Secretary and Branch Manager of the Calicut Co-operative Stores, Ltd. The case against them was that they sold adulterated honey. As the honey was seen to have been purchased by the Calicut Co-operative Society from the Indian Medical Practitioners Co-operative Pharmacy and Stores Ltd, Adyar, Madras under a written warranty of purity a separate case was filed against that company represented by its Secretary. Both the cases were tried together by the District Magistrate, Kozhikode, who while acquitting the accused in the first case (C.C. No. 332 of 1959) convicted the accused in the second (C.C. No. 333 of 1959) under section 16(g) read with section 19 of the Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 300 or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The judgment was taken in appeal before the Kozhikode Sessions Judge who reversed the conviction and sentence on the ground that “it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the honey itself was adulterated and if adulterated by whom it was done.” This appeal is against the above order.

The main point urged by the appellant is that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the honey has not been proved to be adulterated is unsustainable.

Clause A. 07.03 in Appendix B of the Rules under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) defines honey and fixes its standard of quality as follows:

“Honey means the food derived entirely from the work of bees operating upon the nectar of flowers and other sweet exudation of plants. It shall not contain more than (a) 25 per cent. of moisture, (A) 0.9 per cent. of ash, and (c) 10 per cent. of sucrose. The minimum reducing sugar content shall be 60 per cent. Fiehe's test should be negative.”

In Exhibit P-3 report of the Food Analyst he has given his opinion that the sample of honey sent for analysis contained artificial invert sugar and was therefore adulterated. The Analyst was examined as D.W.1 and he gave evidence that he applied two tests, namely, Fiehe's test and Aniline Chloride test to the sample of honey sent to him for analysis and both the tests showed positive reaction indicating the presence of artificial invert sugar. There is no suggestion in his cross-examination that the tests were not properly conducted. No such argument was also advanced before me nor does it appear to have been advanced before the appellate Court. The stand taken before this Court as well as before the Sessions Court was that the test itself is not a conclusive one in that even pure honey if it had been heated previously will give a positive reaction and as such no inference that the honey is adulterated can be drawn from the mere fact that the Fiehe's test was positive. (The evidence in this case is that the honey was heated by the accused for the removal of wax and other foreign bodies so that the honey could be used in medicinal preparations). This contention is based on the observation made by J.R. Nicholls in his book on Aids to Analysis of Food and Drugs-Seventh Edition-Page 248 that:

“Heated pure honeys frequently give a positive Fiehe's test;”.

However the above observation is only the first part of a sentence the latter portion of which goes on to say that:

“…………; but unless the heating has been so drastic as to affect the flavour of the honey no hydroxy-methyl furfural dehyde can be detected by ultra violet absorption.”

Woodman in his book on Food Analysis which is also a standard book on the subject gives expression to the same opinion. On page 335 when dealing with resorcin test (Fiehe's) the learned author observes:

“Honey that has been boiled or strongly heated for some time, especially if some what acid in reaction, will sometimes give a similar reaction, but such high tempera