LexM. RAJA MOHAMMED AND ANR. versus FOOD INSPECTOR, PALGHAT MUNICIPALITY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A M.RAJA MOHAMMED AND ANR. v. FOOD INSPECTOR, PALGHAT MUNICIPALITY NOVEMBER 22, 1991 B [K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 : Rules 44(g) and 47 (As amended by Prevention of Food Adulteration (Third Amendment) Rules. 1968 and as they stood prior to Amendment of 15.4.1988)-Appendix 'B'-Restriction on sale of Articles containing Artificial sweetener/ C Saccharin-Prescription ojstandard of saccharin or any artificial sweet- ener in Appendix 'B' is not relevant-Standard must be prescribed in respect of Article of sale-Standard must permit user of sweetener in the Article-No standard laid down for Supari and Pan Masala-Held addi- tion of artificial sweetener saccharin in Pan Masala and Supari is prohib- ited. D The appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 553/89) was prosecuted for selling adulterated supari with admixture of saccharin. He filed a petition in the Kerala High Court under section 482 of the Crimi- nal Procedure Code for quashing the criminal proceedings which was dismissed by a single judge. Against the decision of the single E judge an appeal was filed in this Court. F G H The appellant (In Criminal Appeal No. 283/91) was also pros- ecuted for selling adulterated Supari but was acquitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad. On appeal the Kerala High <:;ourt set aside his acquittal and convicted him under section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs.1000. Against the order of the Kerala High Court an appeal was filed in this Court. The appellant (In Criminal Appeal No. 284/91) was convicted under section 7(i) and (v) read with sections 16(i) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for sale of adulterated supari with admixture of saccharin. He filed a Revision Petition in the Kerala High Court and a Single Judge dismissed the same. Against the order of the Single Judge an appeal was filed in this Court. The facts in the connected civil appeal (Nos. 3708-13/89) are that a batch of writ petitions was filed in the Andhra Pradesh High 390. / f ( RAJA MOHAMMED v. FOOD INSPECTOR ·Court for a declaration that the admixture of saccharin in supari A was in accordance with Rule 44 of the Prevention of Food Adultera- tion Rules, 1955 and for restraining the respondents from interfer- ing with the business of sale of supari. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petitions. Against the decision of the Divi- sion Bench Union of India has filed appeals in this Court. Civil Appeal No. 1897191 is directed against the order of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court which held that the learned Single Judge should have declined jurisdiction for the reason that the relie'f claimed was of a general character for a declaration that the admixture of saccharin in Roja Scented betelnut is not a blanket B ban under Rule 47 read with Appendix 'B' of the Prevention of C Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Criminal Appeal No. 722/91 is directed against the order of the High Court of Kerala setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial court and remanding the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal according to law. The High Court did not agree with D the submission that the article of Supari was not adulterated as saccharin could be added to Supari. Accordingly it held that sac- charin could not be added to supari and consequently remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal according to law. In appeals to this court it was contended on behalf of the ac- E cused that on the construction of Rule 44(c) it permits sale of Arti- cle of food which contains artificial sweetener with the standard as laid down in Appendix 'B' to Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Disposing the appeals, this Court, F HELD : I.Rule 44(g) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 indicates that sale of any article of food which contains artificial sweetener is banned. The ban is lifted only if such artifi- cial sweetener is permitted to be added to the article of food for which standards have been laid down in Appendix 'B' to the Rules. G Ruic 47 in other form specifically bars saccharin or any other arti- cle of artificial sweetener to be added in any article of food, except where the addition of such artificial sweetener is permitted in ac- cordance with the standards laid down i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.