Debi Prasad Uniyal, J. - (1.)This revision is directed against the conviction of the Applicant Under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 6 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of fine of Rs. 25, in default one month's R.I
(2.)The Applicant was found selling lemon -drops without a licence. It was said that Under Clause (h) of Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules there was complete bar to the sale of sweetmeats without obtaining a licence. It was admitted by the accused that he did sell lemon drops, but his contention was that he had a licence for biscuits and that lemon drops did not fall within the category of sweetmeats and hence did not require any licence. This contention was overruled by the courts below and he was convicted and sentenced as said above.
(3.)It seems to me that the present prosecution is wholly misconceived. The learned Sessions Judge sought to extend the scope of the word 'sweetmeats' by bringing within its term lemon drops, he observed that since lemon -drops contained sugar they came within the meaning of sweetmeats. In Webster's New International Dictionary the definition of "sweetmeat" is as follows:
Any food rich in sugar, as cake, candy, sweet pastry, etc. specifically candy or crystallised fruit.

Obviously lemon -drops, though sweet in taste, are not sugar -coated. They cannot, in my opinion, be included within the definition of sweetmeats as such.

It follows that the restriction placed by Rule 50 on the sale of sweetmeats without obtaining a licence can not apply to a case of sale of lemon -drops. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the conviction of the Applicant cannot be sustained.