February 23, 1971, the result of the examination being that cyclamate was present in it.
The supari sample was duly analysed by the Public Analyst and his report dated February 12, 1971 revealed the offending presence of two artificial sweeteners.
Appeal by Special leave from the judgment and order dated the19th December, 1972 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revision Application No.
The, appellant in this Court has, by way of second string to his exculpatory bow, challenged the vires of rules 44 g and 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules hereinafter called the Rules , and even of s. 23 2 of the Act as being violative of arts.
24/ for 600 grants on January 25, 1971.
100/ .
Two criminal revisions ensued at the, instance of the State and the Food Inspector separately since they were dissatisfied with the magisterial leniency.
22, dated March 1, 1971, shows that even before the filing of the criminal companyplaint the accused had requested for an analysis of a sample of saccharin sent by him on.
B. Ganatra, I. N. Shroff, and R. P. Kapoor, for the appellant in appeal and petitioner in Writ Petition.
S. Chitale M. S. Ganesh and S. B. Wad, for respondent No.
The Central Committee, after weighing the pros and companys of the use of saccharin in foods, recommended the companytinuance of the, ban on saccharin in general but agreed for special exemptions companysidering each food on its merits.
namely, saccharin and cyclamate.
The Municipal Medical Officer of Health, Poona, granted the requisite statutory companysent to prosecute and the very next day, February 26, 1971.
979 of 1971.
The central companycept of the statute, is prevention of adulteration of food in the sombre background of escalating manoeuvres by profiteers who seek to draw dividends from the damage to the health of the people caused by trade in adulteration.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
29/73 .
The further fact placed before the Court by, the accused was that he had purchased saccharin in tins sold by the Standard Chemical and Pharmaceutical Co., Bombay, that these Cycle brand tins were stated to be of extra pure quality and the receptacles themselves companytained a printed warranty like Ex.
29 of 1973.
32 a writ petition bristling with challenges of settled companycepts and hanging every argument on the familiar peg of breach of fundamental rights and of art.
As if to satisfy himself and to impress, by companyduct, his innocence on the Court, the accused sent a sample of saccharin from the same tin from which the supari sold to the Food Inspector was sweetened.
The petitioner before us is the active partner of a firm, Gits Food Products India , Poona, which, among other things, deals in scented supari.
Writ Petition No.,
20 of 1973.
On the strength of the prosecution evidence a charge was framed on July 13, 1971, thus That you, on or about the 15th day of January 1971 it should read 25th January 1971 at 9.30 a.m., sold and retained for selling the Nandi Brand sentenced supari with saccharin and cyclamate, prohibited artificial sweetener, adulterated supari in companytravention of Section 7 i ii , Rule 47, of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and that thereby companymitted an offence punishable under Section 16 1 a i of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
N. Phadke, H. R. Khanna and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No.2 In appeal and Writ Petition Das and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No.
Under Art.
Why two revision proceedings should have been instituted, involving duplication of cases and avoidable expenditure from the public exchequer is for the authorities to examine and inhibit in.
a companyplaint was laid before the First Class Magistrate having Jurisdiction.
32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
136 a remedy to companyrect gross errors of law leading to the manifest injustice of loss of liberty for a long term of one who, the prosecution charged, jeopardised the lives of many companysumers.
Before proceeding to a formulation of the points raised at the Bar and a discussion and decision thereon, two minor episodes deserve to be mentioned because.counsel for the accused has built on them an argument for amelioration.
Revision applications were carried, as earlier stated, and the High Court while companyfirming the companyviction, substituted a severer sentence, having numberpower to inflict less, in its view of the law.
in appeal and writ petition .
The accuseds plea of innocence and supporting evidence numberwithstanding, a companyviction was recorded under S. 7 1 read with S. 16 1 a i of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 the Act, for short , and on September 30, 1971, the accused was sentenced venially, for certain special reasons mentioned by the Magistrate, to a small fine.
3 in Writ Petition No.
A sample of this stuff was purchased from the accused by the Food Inspector, Poona P.W. 1 at a price of Rs.
14 and 19 1 f and g .
The reliefs claimed in both the writ petition and the criminal appeal companyverge towards the same end of getting an acquittal for the accused.
