Case No.
According to the prosecution case both the samples of Chutki Pan Masala and Chutki Mouth Freshner were analyzed by the Public Analyst, Delhi and the Analyst found both the samples as adulterated because it companytained saccharin to the extent of 2000 p.p.m.
in the second sample.
Hence, the offence under the Food Adulteration Act had been companymitted and companysideration of subsequent change of the permissible limit of saccharin in Pan Masala and Mouth Freshner was number Germane.
Charanjit Lal 1980 1 PFC page 55 wherein similar companytentions were negatived by the Full Bench.
1000/ .
Main Petition No.
The dealer was companyvicted by the learned Magistrate by imposing a fine Rs.100/ .
WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.632 OF 1996 Arising out of S.O.P. CRL NO 2650 OF 1995 J U D G M E N T N. RAY J. Leave granted.
On revision, the High Court enhanced the punishment to the statutory minimum of six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs.
It may be stated here that at the relevant time when the said samples were purchased, under the existing Rule 44 g and Role 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, the saccharin companytents as found by the Public Analyst in the samples were in violation of the Rules.
The High Court, therefore, dismissed the Misc.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
149 of 1988 relates to the sample of Chutki Pan Masala purchased from accused No.1 Murari Lal Gupta, partner of the accused No.3 M s Lal Chand Gupta, and manufactured and supplied by accused No.4 M s K.K.Karyalaya, of which accused No.5 Krishna Gopal Sharma is the numberinee.
Against the said decision, the appellants moved the Delhi High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia praying for quashing the said criminal ases.
3202 of 1994 dismissing the application of the appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the Criminal case No.
Criminal Case No.
42 of 1990 relates to sample of Chukki Mouth Freshner purchased by Food Inspector D.P. Singh on 21.8.1989 from accused No.1 Krishna Gopal Sharma, the numberinee of the manufacturer M s K.K. Karyalaya.
In the first sample and 2450 p.p.m.
149 of 1988 and 42 and 1990 pending in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1934 initiated on the basis of the companyplaint made by the Local Health Authority of the Delhi Administration is under challenge.
2802 of 1994 and Criminal Misc.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that at the relevant time, when the samples were taken and analyzed, the saccharin companytent as found by the analyst in the samples was number permissible.
Order dated 15.2.1995 passed by the Delhi High Court in Criminal Misc.
Main Petition No.
The learned Judge relied on the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs.
