I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) The petitioner was convicted for an offence under section 16(l)(a) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) on the following allegations:- On 19th Oct., 1973, Dr S.P. Mago, P.W. 1 visited the premises of A.S. Madan (since acquitted) who was running his pharmacy under the name and style of Parkash Pharmacy. At that time Shri Madan was having 10 bottles of Arkays A.G. Mark Kashmiri Honey for public sale. After serving him with notice Exhibit PA in form 6, Dr. Mago purchased 600 grams of honey contained in three bottles for Rs. 10.65 against receipt Exhibit P.B. Each of these three bottles bore Batch No. 7 dated 15th June, 1973. All the three bottles were properly labelled, secured and fastened in a parcel which was sealed with the seal of Dr. Mago. One of these bottles was sent to the Public Analyst. Vide his report Ex. PD, the Analyst found the sample to be adulterated. This lead to the prosecution of A.S. Madan on the basis of complaint Exhibit PE. As the plea of A.S. Madan was that he had purchased the sealed bottle of honey under warranty from the petitioner, the trial Court summoned the petitioner as an accused vide its order dated Jan. 25, 1975. As a result of the trial, A.S. Madan was acquitted and the petitioner was sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a line of Rs. 1,000.00.
(2.) The sole submission of Mr. Batta, learned counsel for the petitioner is that even as per the report of the Public Analyst, it cannot be said that the sample of honey was in any way deficient or the same did not fulfil the standard of quality laid down for honey under rule 5 framed under the Act. In order to appreciate the argument, reproduction of the relevant portion of the report of the Public Analyst and the standard specifications laid down for honey in appendix-B is essential. The report of the Public Analyst is as under "Fiehes test - positive. Aniline Chloride test - Positive. Moisture - 18.6% Reducing sugar - 69.6% Sucrose - 2.14% And am of the opinion that positive Fiehes test and Anniline Chloride tests are indicative of mixture with technically invert sugar." Standard of quality laid down in appendix B is as under : "Honey means the food derived entirely from the work of bees operating upon the nectar of flowers and other sweet exudation of plants. It shall contain not more than (a) 25 per cent of moisture, (b) 0.5 per cent of ash and (c) 5 per cent of sucrose except in the case Carbia callossa and Honey dew where the maximum sucrose content shall be 10 per cent. The minimum reducing sugar content (expressed as invert sugar) shall be 65 per cent. In the case of Carbia callossa and Honeydew where it shall be 60 per cent. Fructose/Glucose ratio shall not be less than 0.90. Fiehes test should ordinarily be negative." The standard specifications reproduced above are as these stood on Oct. 28, 1974, that is, the date of which the petitioner was convicted and as these were after the substitution vide Govt, of India Notification No. 205 dated Feb. 13, 1974. The last part of the standard specifications would show that so far as the Fiehes test is concerned, the same should ordinarily be negative. The use of the word ordinarily does not mean that result of Fiehes test should always be negative. In this view of the matter the learned counsel submits that merely because the Public Analyst found that Fiehes test was positive, the same cannot lead to the conclusion that the honey was adulterated. I find considerable force in this submission of the learned counsel. The learned counsel further points out that the other tests applied by the Public Analyst, that is, Aniline Choloride tests are not required to be carried out as part of the standard specifications laid down above. He also drew my attention to letter Ex. DW 3/1 issued by the Under Secretary, Govt, of India, Ministry of Health, regarding standard of quality for honey, relevant extract of the said letter is as follows : "As there is a divergence of among the various authorities regarding the quality of A.O.A.C. method for determining the standard of quality of honey the Director General of Health Services have been asked to investigate the matter further. In the meantime, I am to request that instructions may kindly be issued to the authorities concerned that pending a final decision in the matter no sample of honey should be deemed to be adulterated for any prosecution launched where all the conditions, other than the Fiehes test prescribed in item No, A 07 in Appendix B of the P.F.A. Rules are satisfied." As has been submitted by the learned counsel, the sample of honey in this case was not found to be deficient in any manner by the Public Analyst except that Fiehes test was not negative as discussed above. That by itself cannot lead to the conclusion that the honey was adulterated.
(3.) In view of the discussion above, I hold that no case is proved against the petitioner and he deserves to be acquitted. I, therefore, allow this petition, set aside his conviction and sentence. Fine, if paid, be refunded to him. Petition allowed.;