K. KRISHNA IYER versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 707 · Decided: 30-03-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

K. KRISHNA IYER 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. 
MARCH 30, 1993 
(DR. A.S. ANAND AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: 
. 
. 
Sections 7(1), 16(1-A) and 161(a)(i)-lce stick containing sacharin-
Prohibition of artificial sweetener-Sample not in confonnity with standards 
C 
prescribed-Hence adulterated-Presence of dulcin-Found by Public Analyst 
and Central Food Laboratory excluding it-Conviction altered. 
The appellant was selling ice-sticks. The Food inspector took samples 
and sent one sample to the Public A/lalyst, who opined that it contained 
artificial sweeteners viz. sacharjn and dulcin and was therefore adulterated. D 
A complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate. Appellant pleaded not 
guilty and exercised his right to have the sample analysed by the Central 
Food Laboratory. According to the report of the Central Food Laboratory 
the sample contained artificial sweetener identified as sacharin. The 
Magistrate convicted the appellant for an offence under sec. 16(1)(a) read E 
with see. 7(1) of the Act, sentenced him to suffer one year rigorous imprison-
ment and to pay a line of Rs. 2,000 and in default to undergo imprisonment 
for three months. The api>eal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by 
the Sessions Judge. The Criminal Revision petition filed before the High 
Court was also dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that since the report of 
the Public A/lalyst which had found the presence of .dulcin in the sample 
stood superseded by the report of the Central Food Laboratory which had 
not found the presence of dulcin, the consumption of which was injurious 
F 
to health under the Rules, the conviction of the appellant for an offence G 
under Section 16(1-A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 
was not justified; and that the presence of artificial sweetener like sac-
charin, which has not been declared as injurious to health could not attract 
the provisions of S.16(1A) of the Act. 
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court 
707 
H 
708 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1993] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1. It would be seen from Section 16(1-A) of the Prevention of 
B 
Food Adulteration Act, 1954 that in order to maintain a conviction under 
the said provision, the article of food which is adulterated should fall 
either in one of the sub-clauses(e) to (I) of clause (ia) of Section 2 or should 
contain an adulterant which is injurious to health. The adulterated article 
of food sold in this case admittedly does not fall in any of the sub-clauses 
(e) to (I) of Section 2(ia). According to the report of Central Food 
Laboratory, it also does not contain any adulterant declared as 'injurious 
to health'. [712 E, Fl 
2. However, keeping in view the fact that the Article of food, 'ice-stick' 
C sold by the appellant did not conform to the standard as prescribed in Item 
A.07.04 of Appendix Band contained an artificial sweetener-sacharin-it 
is obvious that the article of food sold by the appellant was adulterated 
within the meaning of Section 2(ia)(m) of the Act and the same would, 
therefore, be punishable under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Act. [713 CJ 
D 
3. It cannot be said that since the appellant had been charged for an 
offence under Section 16(1-A) of the Act, he could not be convicted for an 
offence under Section 16(1) (a)(i) of the Act. The penalty for an offence 
under Section 16(l)(a)(i) admittedly is less than the penalty prescribed 
for the offence under Section 16(1 ·A), which is a graver offence and 
E 
therefore, there is no impediment in the way of the court, on the findings 
)<,
of the fact recorded by it, to convert the conviction of the appellant from 
the one under Section 16(1-A) to one under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, 
notwithstanding the fact that the appellant had been charge-sheeted for an 
offence under Section 16(1-A) of the Act. [713 E, F] 
F 
4.Judicial notice is taken of the fact that the type ofadulterated article 
sold by the appellant is the one generally consumed by children and it is not 
only illegal but even immoral to serve them with articles containing artificial 
sweeteners use whereof has been prohibited by the statute. Just because the 
appeal has remained pending here since 1985 the society cannot be made to 
G suffer for this delay by letting the criminal go unpunished as a crime of this 
nature, being a crime against the society at large, cannot be ignored. Sym-
pathy in su

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.