- (1.) THIS appeal by Special Leave is directed against an appellate order of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Meerut whereby the Respondent was acquitted of an offence Under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Respondent Brij Behari admittedly sells butter. On 9 -4 -1964 a sample of the butter exposed for sale at the shop of the Respondent was taken by the Food Inspector concerned land a sum of Rs. 1 -88 np. was paid tip the Respondent. As required by the rules the sample was divided into three parts and placed in three phials one of which was sent to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst was that in the sample the moisture (water -content) exceeded the prescribed maximum limit of 16 per cent and the milk fat content was less than the prescribed minimum limit of 80 per cent. The butter sold by the Respondent was wrapped in a wrapper Ex. D1 which contained the following declaration: This butter contains an admixture of not more than 26% of moisture.
(2.) AS a result of investigation the Respondent was prosecuted and was convicted by the learned trial Magistrate. The Respondent preferred an appeal against the order of conviction and was acquitted by the learned appellate court. It has not been disputed on behalf of the Respondent that the butter exposed for sale by him on the aforesaid date was not upto the standard laid down in the rules (table -Creamery Butter). The contention put forward on behalf of the Respondent in the courts below and reiterated in this Court is that as he had made a declaration on the wrapper of the butter he was not liable to be convicted and Rule 43 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules protected him.
(3.) THE main question therefore which crops up for decision is whether the declaration made by the Appellant on the wrapper was in accordance with the rules.;