Harbans Lal, J. - (1.) PARMA Nand accused -respondent was charged for the offence of keeping in his possession 400 pieces of adulterated ice candy for sale under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter called the Act) in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar, and after trial acquitted by its judgment dated August 19, 1975. The Municipal Committee, Amritsar, (hereinafter called the Committee), on whose behalf the complaint had been filed by the Food Inspector, has challenged the said decision in the present appeal.
(2.) DR . Joginder Singh (P.W. 1) Food Inspector of the Committee raided the factory of the respondent styled as 'Tip Top Milk Ices' situate at Amritsar on April 5, 1973, at about 9 30 A.M. He was accompanied by Shri V.K. Kholi, Sanitary Inspector and Rattan Jamadar two witnesses from the locality, namely, Kanshi Ram and Fauja Singh were also joined. A sample of 900 gms. candy was purchased by the Food Inspector from the accused on payment of Rs. 2/ - as price. After mixing the same in a Pateela (pan) with spoon the same was made into three equal parts and after complying with the formalities, as prescribed under the Act and the Rules in the presence of the witnesses, were put into three bottles and sealed. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst According to his report Exhibit P.F. the same was opined to be adulterated under rule 47 of the Act as it contained saccharine. Consequently prosecution was launched against the accused. At the trial, the Food Inspector Dr. Joginder Singh and one of the recovery witnesses Kanshi Ram appeared as witnesses. The report of the Public Analyst Exhibit P.F. and the various memos relating to the recovery of the ice candy etc were also produced in evidence. One sample was also sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta Its report dated May 26, 1975, also confirmed the report of the Food Inspector regarding adulteration. The accused, in his statement under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, took up the plea that a false case due to defective procedure of sampling had been foisted on him and that the containers used by the Food Inspector for the purpose of mixing the candy were not clean and dry. Further plea was also taken that the accused used to prepare the ice -cream and ice -candies with saccharine on the special orders of the diabetic patients. For this purpose, solution of saccharine used to be mixed in the Pateela (pan). On April 3, 1975, that is, a day prior to the purchase of the ice -candy by the Food Inspector, he had prepared such solution as Mr. Gurpal and Mangat Ram had placed the order regarding ice -cream. In defence, Shri Ravinder Nath Buri, Public Analyst P.W. 3 was called for cross -examination. Shri Gurdial Singh D.W. 1 was also produced as a defence witness. According to the Public Analyst, he could not tell whether the sample tested by him in the present case contained. 0 per pent or .003 per cent of saccharine. He also agreed that even .003 per cent quantity will give a positive result but .003 per cent will not do so, the quantity being too small. He, however, could not give any definite opinion if use of saccharine was injurious to health or not and whether the same was allowed to be used in the preparation office candy or not under the rules. The defence witness Shri Gurpal D.W. 1 stated that his brother was suffering from diabetes and ice -candies with saccharine had been got prepared from the accused for him. It was further stated that the accused had prepared the Kulfie for him out of which some had been received by him and the rest had to be taken on the next day.
(3.) THE Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar, after trial of the case acquitted the accused after arriving at the following conclusions: - - 10. Thus there is no evidence that saccharine is injurious to health. There is also no evidence as to what was the quantity of this sweetening agent present in the ice candy. Possibly, presence was in traces. Accused must, in this situation, get benefit of section 95, Indian Penal Code, and is accordingly acquitted of the charge against him.;