Similar arguments were raised in the appeal before the Sessions Court also.
It is, thereafter, that he has companye up to this companyrt by appeal on special leave being granted.
It was found by the Central Food Laboratory that the sample companytained an artificial sweetener identified as saccharin to the extent of 190 parts per million.
Before the trial companyrt, it was urged that the ice stick sold by the appellant to the Food Inspector PWl companyld number be treated as ice candy and since numberstandard for ice stick had been prescribed in the Act, the companyviction of the appellant was number warranted.
were applicable to the article sold by the appellant also.
One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst at Trivandrum, who vide report dated 6.3.1980 opined that the said sample companytains artificial sweeteners saccharin and dulcin and is therefore adulterated.
The appellant pleaded number guilty and also exercised his right to have the sample analysed from the Central Food Laboratory.
According to the report of the Public Analyst, dulcin to the extent of 100.0 parts per million and saccharin to the extent of 90.0 parts per million was found present in the sample sent for analysis.
It was also argued that for the offence companymitted by the appellant the sentence imposed was number justified.
The sample had also tested positive for presence of cane sugar.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.1984 of the Kerala High Court in Crl.
of ice stick and paid Rs.
The trial companyrt, negatived both the companytentions and recorded a finding of fact to the effect that the appellant had sold an article of food ice stick to PWl for purposes of analysis and that the ingredients of the ice candy and the ice tick were the same and the standards prescribed for ice candy etc.
A companyplaint was accordingly filed before the Additional Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Trivandrum.
Criminal Revision Petition No.
The sample was then set to the Central Food Laboratory and after analysis of the sample, it opined that the sample does number companyform to the standards laid down for ice candy under the provisions of PFA Act 1954 and the Rules thereunder.
781 of 1985.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
459 of 1981.
The Public Analyst also stated in his report that the use of dulcin in food articles is number permitted on account of the fact that its companysumption is injurious to health.
S.K. Iyer, Ms. Prasanthi Prasad and N. Sudhakaran for the Appellant.
The companyviction and sentence were upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Trivandrum who dismissed his appeal on 28.10.1981.
T. George for the Respondents.
R.P.No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.
2000 and in default to undergo imprisonment for three months.
ANAND, J. The appellant was companyvicted for an offence under Section 7 1 read with Section 16 1 A i of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 hereinafter the Act by the Additional Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Trivandrum on 17.7.1981 and sentenced to suffer one year I. and to pay a fine of Rs.
459 of 1981 filed in the High Court of Kerala also failed on 8th August, 1984.
On 12.2.1980, the Food Inspector of the Corporation of Trivandrum after disclosing his identity purchased from the appellant 600 gms.
