- (1.) O. P. Mehrotra, J. A learned Single Judge of this Court has referred this case to a Division Bench a- he found that two contradictory views had been taken by two Single Judges of this Court in the cases of Kailash Kumar Shukla v. State, 1982 ACR page 114 and Ibrahim Hussain and others State of U. P. , 1982 Excise and Food Adulteration Reports 425.
(2.) A sample of Pan Masala was taken by the Food Inspector from the applicant and was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The report of the Public analyst shows that the Pan Masala was sweetened with saccharin. Having been found guilty of the offence under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the courts below, he came up to this Court in revision. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that Pan Masala could not be said to be adulterated as the report of the Public Analyst did not show that saccharin, with which it was sweetened, did not conform to the standard prescribed in Rule 44 (g) read with Para A07. 10 of Appendix-B. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Ibrahim Hussain and others v. State of U. P. , 1982 Excise and Food Adulteration Reports 425, which was also a case of Pan Masala which was found etc. contain Saccharain. It was held that addition of saccharin in Pal Masala will not be an offence unless it was proved that such addition did not conform to the standard laid down in Para A07. 10 of Appendix B. It was observed that in each case of addition of sachcharin, prosecution is required to give evidence whether it conforms with the standard laid down in Para A07. 10. A contrary view had, however, been taken by another Single Judge of this Court in the case of Kailash Kumar Shukla v. State, 1982 ACR 114, in which a reference was made to Rule 44 (g) and Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and it was held : "reading both the rules together the inference is inevitable that sac charin cannot now be added in any article of food except as permitted under Appendix B. For example, it may be mentioned in the case of non-alcoholic bewerages viz. serial No. A 01 of Appendix-B, the use of saccharin not exceeding 10 p. m. is per mitted. This illustration I have merely cited to show that Appendix-B contains items in which admixture of saccharin is permitted, but for the rest where the addition has not been specifi cally mentioned, Rule 44 provides an absolute bar to the admixture of this artificial sweetener to other items of food. "
(3.) ON account of the fact that contrary views had been taken in the above Single Judge decisions, this reference has been made to the Division Bench. We may mention at the out-set that after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel and having carefully considered the various decisions cited before us, we find overselves in respectful agreement with the view taken by Hon'ble Bakshi, J. in Kailashs Kama Shukle's case (supra) and we are of the opinion that the view taken in Ibrahim Hussain's case does not lay down the correct law.;