FOOD INSPECTOR HEALTH OFFICER CALICUT CORPORATION Vs. C GOPALAN
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
FOOD INSPECTOR (HEALTH OFFICER), CALICUT CORPORATION
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE respondents in these two appeals have been acquitted by the District magistrate of the offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act. The charge against them was that they sold sugar adulterated with saccharin to the Food Inspector. The respondents were owners of tea shops; and they did not sell sugar as such in their shops. The District Magistrate has acquitted them on the ground that the sugar they sold to the Food Inspector was not meant to be sold, in other words, the respondents were not dealers in sugar.
(2.) SACCHARIN is not prohibited as an admixture in some articles of food. Rule 44 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules of 1955 prohibits the sale of certain mixtures. But, under Clause (g) of the rule, any article of food, which contains any official sweetener except saccharin, alone is prohibited. Rule 47 prescribes that saccharin may be added to any food, if the container of such food is labelled with an adhesive declaratory label snowing that it contains an admixture of saccharin.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY, what happened in these cases was that the Food Inspector went to the tea shops of the respondents and purchased samples of sugar from them, kept in bottles not labelled. It is also admitted that the respondents were not selling sugar as such, in other words, were not dealers in sugar. But, the argument of the counsel of the Food Inspector is that the sale of sugar to the Food Inspector is a sale as contemplated by the Act; and that if the article sold was an adulterated article of food, the vendor of such article committed an offence under the Act.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.