S.S.Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) THE two Petitioners were found guilty under sections I(sic)(1)(a)(i) and 1(1)(a)(ii)(sic) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for nine months and a fine of Rs. 1,0 0/ - each on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/ - each on the second count On appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, up held the conviction and sentenced them under Section 16(1)(a)(i), but accepted the appeal on the second charge and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 16(l)(a)(ii) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Petitioners have come up by way of this revision.
(2.) ON July 27, 1974 at about 5 P. M Dr. B R. Chawla purchased a sample of admittedly green Palampur tea for analysis from Sant Lal Petitioner from there premises near Kesri Bagh, Amritsar. In the godown there were about 100 bags of(sic) green Palampur tea. One of the bags was opened and after making its contents homogeneous by mixing the leaves thoroughly, 375 grams of tea leaves, as sample out of that, against payment of Rs. 1/ - was secured and the receipt exhibit PD issued. The sample was divided into three parts in accordance with the provisions of the statute and the Rules. It is the case that Sant Lal Petitioner disclosed that Ram Sarup was a partner with him in the business. Subsequent analysis by the Public Analyst revealed that the sample contained ingredients which were below the standard prescribed by item A.14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called the Rules')
(3.) MR . Harinder Singh appearing for the Petitioners has raised a solitary meaningful challenge to the conviction recorded against the Petitioners it is pointed out that admittedly the tea in the possession of the Petitioners was green Palampur tea grown in Kangra District. At the material time of the taking of the sample on July 27, 1974, the standard generally prescribed for the tea was spelled out in item A. 14 in Appendix 'B' of the Rules. However, before even the trial could conclude on September 21(sic), 1 76, an amendment was introduced in the relevant provisions by a notification No. GSR 850 dated June 25, 1975 issued under the Act. Thereby item A 14 was amended to lay down inter alia that 'Tea means tea other than Kangra tea'. This apart an altogether new item was inserted by the same notification in the Appendix as A. 14 01, which first defined 'Kangra tea' as 'tea derived exclusively from the leaves, buds and tender stems of plan's of the Camellia sinensis or Camellia tea grown in Kangra and Mandi valleys of Himachal Pradesh'. For this tea, specifications were prescribed which admittedly are different from tea other than Kangra tea which continued to be governed by item A 14. Learned Counsel contends both on principle and on the basis of authority that the standard applicable to the tea recovered from the Petitioners has to conform to the freshly prescribed standard vide item A. 1 0(sic) and admittedly the analysis having not been conducted with regard to this standard, there is on the present record nothing to show that the sample recovered is adulsarated(sic);