Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ariyalur, in C.C. No. 151 of 1964, acquitting the six accused in the case. The complaint was filed by P.W. 1 the Food Inspector of Ariyalur Panchayat, for an offence under Section 7 and Section (1) read with Section 2(ix)(j) and Rule 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act XXXVII of 1954.

2. P.W. 1 went to the grocery shop of accused 1, Raju Chettiar in Ariyalur about noon on 30th January, 1964, and, suspecting the composition of a packet styled as Misky Compounded Asafoetida, decided to take action under the Act. Accordingly, he called two witnesses, Veeramuthu (P.W. 2) and Krishnamurthi Chettiar. He bought one packet (M.O. 1) weighing 400 grams. for Rs. 1-50, the receipt being signed by accused 1. He observed the usual procedure, divided the contents into three parts, put them into three bottles, closed them and sealed them. One bottle was given to the first accused under acknowledgment, Exhibit P-3, P.W. 1 sent one bottle to the Public Analyst and sent the other bottle to the Court, Exhibit P-4, the report of the Public Analyst was to the effect that the as afoetida contained coaltar dye which was not permitted under the rules. Thereupon as a complaint was filed by P.W. 1 on 3.0th June, 1964.

13. The point will not need so much discussion after the amendment effected by Act XLIX of 1964 of Section 20 introducing words to show that even a general authorisation is enough.

14. I hold therefore that the complaint was valid and the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

15. Before proceeding to deal with the points urged by the defence on the merits, it will be convenient to indicate how the prosecution claims that an offence has been made out. Besides the report Exhibit P-4, the Public Analyst has been examined as C.W. 1 and his evidence is that the sample sent to him consisted of compounded asafoetida and it contained metanil yellow which is a coaltar dye the use of which is prohibited. Now, asafoetida is an article of food and that is not disputed. Rule 23 of the Rules says that the addition of a colouring matter to any article of food except as specifically permitted by the rules is prohibited. Rule 5 says that the standards of quality of the various articles of food specified in Appendix B to the rules are as defined in that Appendix. Rule A. 04 of the rules framed under Appendix B, in respect of compounded asafoetida, prohibits the use of coaltar dyes or mineral pigment. Again, Rule 28 of the main rule is also relevant. It says "No coaltar dyes or a mixture thereof except the following should be used in food" and metanil yellow is not one of the excepted coaltar dyes. Sri K.A. Panchapakesan also refers to Rule 29 which says, "Use of permitted coaltar dyes in or upon any food other than those enumerated below is prohibited", and he points out that compounded asafoetida is not one of the articles of food mentioned there. Rule 29 also will apply.

16. Thus, it is clear that metanil yellow in compounded asafoetida is prohibited under Rule 23 read with Rules 28 and 29 and Rule 5 read with Appendix B, rule A. 04.

17. The compounded asafoetida which was sold by accused 1 to P.W. 1 in this case would, therefore, be misbranded food under the definition in Section 2(ix)(j) of the Act which reads:

...an article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded-

If it contains any artificial favouring, artificial colouring or chemical preservative without a declaratory label stating that fact, or in contravention of the requirements of this Act or rules made thereunder.