1 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 429 OF 2000 K.P.Ashok ] Adult, Indian Inhabitant, ] carrying on business in ] the name and style “ Prinsha ] Bakery ” at and post Kudal ] Dist. Sindhudurg ]..Petitioner (Ori. Accused) Vs. 1. State of Maharashtra ] 2. Food Inspector, Food & ] Drug Administration, ] Sindhudurg at & Post Oros ] Dist. Sindhudurg ]..Respondent .... Mr. A.S.Khandeparkar Adv. for Petitioner Mr. H.J.Dedhia APP for Respondents .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : 15th APRIL, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 2 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2 The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sindhudurg-Oros vide his judgment and order dated 17th December, 1990 passed in Regular Criminal Case No. 29 of 1997 found the petitioner-original accused guilty for the offence under Section 7(v) read with rule 29 punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and he was sentenced to suffer RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default S.I. for three months. The appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed, hence, this revision. 3 The prosecution case briefly stated is that the petitioner was vendor and proprietor of M/s. Prinsha Bakery, near S.T. stand, Kudal, Dist. Sindhudurg. PW 1 Food Inspector Shri. S.V. Naik and PW 3 Vikas Kudalkar panch witness visited his bakery and inspected the shop. PW 1 demanded article “ Jeera Toast ” for analysis. Accordingly, the petitioner sold him 1500 gms. of Jeera Toast for Rs.36/-. After necessary procedure, the Food Inspector PW 1 made three packets of Jeera Toast. One of which was sent to Public Analyst to Pune. The sample was found containing dye colouring matter i.e. tartrazine. 3 According to the prosecution, this amounted to adulteration, hence, after due sanction, prosecution was launched. 4 Both the Courts below have observed that the sample of Jeera Toast comes under the meaning of “ biscuits ” . The prosecution has relied on the report of Public Analyst Exhibit-9/8 which shows that sample was found to be adulterated with tartrazine. Both the Courts below have failed to take into account the provisions of Rules 28 and 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Rule 29 states that use of permitted synthetic food colours is prohibited in any food other than those enumerated below: a)........................... b) Biscuits including biscuit wafer, pastries, cakes confectionery, threat candies, sweets, savouries (dalmoth, mongia, phululab, sago papad, dal biji only) c) ........................... 5 Thus, from Rule 29, it is seen that synthetic food colour can be used in biscuits. Thus, as such, synthetic colour could have been used in Jeera Toast. Rule 28 which deals with synthetic colours, states that no synthetic food colours except those stated in Rule 28 shall be 4 used in food. Rule 28 states that one of Synthetic food colours which may be used is yellow, the common name of which is Tartrazine sunset yellow FCF. 6 Thus, on a conjoint reading of Rules 28 and 29, it is seen that use of tartrazine, which is a synthetic food colouring is allowed in biscuits. Both the Courts below have not appreciated this aspect. In view of these rules, it cannot be said that any case of adulteration is made out. The judgment and order of conviction therefore, deserves to be set aside. 7 Hence, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. Sindhudurg-Oros dated 17th December, 1997 passed in RCC No. 29 of 1997 is set aside. The petitioner-accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 7(v) r.w. Rule 29 punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]