The determination of adulteration must be based on proper analysis of the final food product, not the concentrate.

1. The petitioners are accused Nos. 5 and 6 in a prosecution under S.16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act .

2. The complainant, Food Inspector, alleged that the first accused/vendor had sold the article of food viz. soft drink concentrate, to him on 12.3.1999. The said soft drink concentrate on analysis was found to be adulterated. Therefore, after observing the procedure prescribed by law, the complainant filed a complaint against six accused persons. The first accused is the vendor. Accused No. 4 is a firm, which distributed the soft drink concentrate to the 1st accused. 2nd accused is the Managing Partner and the 3rd accused is the Partner of the said 4th accused, distributor. The petitioners - A5 and A6 - are the nominees of the manufacturer and Manufacturer respectively of the food item - soft drink concentrate - purchased by the complainant from the first accused.

3. The petitioners have come to this court with the prayer that the prosecution against them may be quashed for the reason that the article of food sold by them is not adulterated even accepting the entire allegations raised in the complaint and the documents produced along' with the complaint.

4. For the soft drink concentrate, which is undisputedly an article of food, no specific standard is prescribed under the Appendix. The article is said to be adulterated as per the report of the Public Analyst, produced as Annex. A2 along with this Crl. M. C. for the reason that the soft drink concentrate analysed does not conform to R.29(d) and 30 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rule, 1955.

5. R.28 to 31 are in this context relevant. Under R.28 there is an embargo against using any synthetic food colour or mixture thereof to any article of food except those specified in the Rule. In the table, which specifies the permitted synthetic food colours, S1. No. 2 deals with colour yellow and tartrazine colour index 19140 of the chemical class of Pyrazolone is a permitted synthetic food colour.

6. R.29 shows that even if the synthetic food colour is permitted under R.28 the same can be used only in or upon the food items enumerated in that rule. Though permitted under R.28, such synthetic food colour cannot be used in or upon any other article of food except those specified in clauses (a) to (g) of R.29. Clause (d) is relevant for our purpose. As per clause (d) Synthetic soft drink concentrate is an article of food in which the synthetic food colour specified in R.28 can be used.

7. Even if R.28 and 29 are satisfied, R.30 introduces a further mandate that such permitted synthetic food colour can be used in items of food specified in R.29 only upto a maximum limit.

Normally it cannot exceed "100 parts per million of the final food or beverage for consumption." I extract R.30 below emphasising the relevant portion.
R.30: Maximum limit of permitted synthetic food colours: -

The maximum limit of permitted synthetic food colours or mixture thereof which may be added to any food article enumerated in R.29 shall not exceed 100 parts per million of the final food or beverage for consumption, except in case of food articles mentioned in clause (c) of Rules 29 where the maximum limit of permitted synthetic food colours shall not exceed 200 parts per million of the final food or beverage for consumption."  

(emphasis supplied)

R.31 imposes a further restriction. The synthetic food colour specified under R.28 can be used in the food items specified under R.29 upto the maximum limit in R.30 only subject to the further stipulation that such colour must be "pure and free from any harmful impurities." This is the scheme of the rules. If these are violated the article is deemed to be adulterated.

8. The soft drink concentrate in the instant case was analysed and re