Gangeshwar Prasad, J. - (1.) This application has been filed by two persons, Nand Ram and Sardari Lal. They were convicted Under Sec. 16(1) read with Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the SDM Lansdowne and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 150/ - each. Their appeal against their convictions and sentences was dismissed by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge of Tehri Garhwal and they have come up in revision to this Court.
(2.) Sardari Lal Applicant has a flour shop at Kotdwara on Badrinath Marg and Nand Ram Applicant acts as his salesman on that shop. On 30 -5 -1963 Sri fshwari Datt Ghildiyal, Food Inspector, took for analysis 700 grams of Resultant Atta from the shop of the Applicant. On analysis by the Public Analyst the sample taken by the Food Inspector was found to be deficient in gluten, containing only 4.5% of gluten whereas the standard prescribed for Atta, which, according to the prosecution, is applicable to Resultant Atta as well, requires a minimum gluten content of 7%.
(3.) It is admitted by the prosecution that no standard has been prescribed for Resultant Atta as such, but its contention is that Atta includes Resultant Atta and both the articles are governed by the same standard. This contention has beer, accepted by the courts below and the only point involved in the case is whether the contention is sound and worthy of acceptance. A. 18.01 of Appendix B to the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act defines Atta as "the coarse product obtained by milling or grinding wheat," and then it prescribes the standard of quality in respect of it. Resultant Atta has nowhere been defined nor has it anywhere been provided that Resultant Atta shall conform to the standard prescribed for Atta. It is noteworthy in this connection that A. 18.02 and A. 18.03 of Appendix B define Maida and Suji respectively and lay down standards of quality for the said articles.;