- (1.) These three appeals are directed against an order of acquittal of the accused respondent, Messrs. Byron & Co., in three cases under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (37 of 1954) which is a Central Act. The cases were started on applications for summons filed by a Food Inspector of the Howrah Municipality, Haripada Dutta. The charge in each case, as stated in the application for summons, was storing and selling and manufacturing of aerated water which was adulterated. According to the evidence of Haripada Dutta, he purchased for the purpose of analysis samples of Ice Cream Soda, manufactured and stored for sale by the respondent Company, on 13th March, 1956, and he took samples of Lemonade, manufactured and stored for sale by the same Company, on 10th April, 1956, and on the same date he also took Samples of Ice Cream Soda, manufactured and stored for sale by the same Company. These samples were sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, and the Public Analyst found Saccharin in each of the samples, but except for Sacchrin the other ingredients were up to the standard in the samples of aerated water. The Public Analyst stated that Sacchrin was allowed, but it was necessary where Sacchrin was used, that there should be labels stating this pasted on the bottles. According to the prosecution there was no label on any of the bottles from which the samples were taken by the food inspector on 13th March, 1956, and 10th April, 1956, indicating that Sacchrin had been used as a constituent of the aerated water. Accordingly the prosecution case was that the respondent Company had committed offences on three occasions under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(2.) The learned Magistrate, First Class, Howrah, who tried the cases jointly, referred to Rule 47 of the Act which provides that the addition of Saccharin has to be mentioned in the label, but he observed that Part VII of the Rules relating to the packing and labelling of foods had come into force on 1st October, 1956, and, therefore, at the time when the samples were seized the Rule requiring that the label should mention Sacchrin, if used as ingredient, had not come into force, and therefore, the prosecutions were premature. The learned Magistrate also observed that the Manager of the despondent Company did not have the knowledge of the Rule requiring labels to be affixed mentioning Saccharin where Saccharin was used, and while ignorance of law might be no excuse in respect of offences under the permanent laws, like the Indian Penal Code, ignorance of the Rules might be considered as an excuse in the present case. The learned Magistrate also passed strictures on the Municipality for failing to issue new licenses to the respondent Company under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In view of the findings made by the learned Magistrate, he acquitted the accused in the three cases. Against that decision the Howrah Municipality, represented by the Administrator, has filed these three appeals.
(3.) Mr. Bholanath Roy appearing for the Municipality has challenged the findings of the learned Magistrate as erroneous. I must concede that the observations made by the learned Magistrate regarding the default of the Municipality in issuing licenses under the new Act are irrelevant, because the issue or non-issue of the licenses under the new Act with promptitude has nothing to do with the present cases. As regards the observations of the learned Magistrate that the prosecution was premature as Part VII of the Rules had not come into force until 1st October, 1956, Mr. Roy has pointed out that Rule 47 occurs in Part VIII and not in Part VII and that the Rules other them the Rules in parts VI and VII same into force from 24th September, 1955, and that the learned Magistrate is. therefore, wrong in holding that the prosecutions are premature.;