S.Malik, J. - (1.) Both these appeals have been preferred by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Kanpur against the judgments dated 4-1-1977 of the Metropolitan Magistrate (Corporation), Kanpur disposing of Cases Nos. 1218 and 1919 of 1976, both under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and acquitting the accused, who was the same person, in both the cases. As the question of law involved in both the appeals is common, they can be disposed of together.
(2.) According to the prosecution, the Food Inspector concerned had taken samples of Lal Supari and Ambari Chura from the shop 'Laxmi and Sons' belonging to appellant Laxmi Narain, in his presence on 19-2-1976 according to Law. The portions sent to the Public Analyst were found to be adulterated as both contained saccharine which appears to have been used as sweetner. The question, which arose before the learned, Magistrate, was whether Lal Supari and Ambari Chura are 'prepared food' or 'food' within the meaning of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The learned Magistrate rightly held that Supari when not mixed with other articles is 'food', but both Lal Supari and Ambari Chum contained ingredients other than pure Supari and certain process is gone through in the preparation of both. Lal Supari and Ambari Chura, therefore, have rightly been held to be 'prepared food' within the meaning of Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Admittedly, the Food Inspector took only 600 grams of each of the two articles and one third of the same, that is only 200 grams of each, was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. According to Rule 22, the approximate quantity, which should have been sent for analysis of each of the two articles, should have been 500 grams. When the cases were decided and the samples were taken, the law as laid down by the Supreme Court was that Rule 22 was mandatory (Vide AIR 1975 (SC), 189) (1975 (I) FAC 1) and the quantities mentioned therein to be sent to the Public Analyst was the minimum quantity to be sent and if it was not done, the accused was entitled to an acquittal. The learned Magistrate followed the law laid down by the Supreme Court as it then was and rightly acquitted the accused in both the cases.
(3.) Under the circumstances, I see no force in either of the appeals and dismiss both. Appeals dismissed.;