THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.3 OF 2009 ORDER: Accused Nos.3 and 4 in C.C.No.35 of 2006 on the file of the I Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, who were convicted for an offence under Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (for short, ‘the Rules’) to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six Months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- by A.3, who is the Managing Partner and a fine of Rs.3,000/- against A.4 firm. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on 13.07.2000 at 4.00 P.M., the Food Inspector visited the premises of the 1st accused at Perala, Chirala Municipality, and collected samples of vanaspathi by following the procedure and it was sent for analysis and it was found to be adulterated. According to the case of the prosecution, the said vanaspathi is said to have been purchased from the firm A.4 managed by A.3. Vanaspathi is said to have been manufactured by accused Nos.5 and 6. After following the due procedure and recording the evidence, the learned Magistrate convicted all the accused and aggrieved by the same, the appeal Crl.A.No.23 of 2007 was filed by the present revision petitioners and the said appeal was also dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the said sentence, the present revision is filed. 3. The point for consideration is whether the revision petitioners are guilty of the offence punishable under Rule 50 of the Rules. 4. Both the Courts below have found that the revision petitioners of not having licence to deal with the food products and consequently, there is violation of the Rule.50 of the Rules, which is punishable. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that for dealing business in Vanaspathi, no licence is required. In fact, reliance is placed before the lower appellate Court and the appellate Court found that with regard to the Vanaspathi, Vegetable Oil Products, there was substitution of the original G.O., by G.S.R.614 (E), dated 04.01.2001, with effect from 04.01.2001. In view of the same, since this offence has been committed on 13.07.2000, there is no exemption for holding a licence and therefore, consequently, the contention of the revision petitioners could not be accepted and dismissed the appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contends that the view of the lower court is not correct since the Vegetable Oil Products (Regulation) Order, 1998, which has come into effect in December, 1998 defines as to what is ‘vanaspathi’ and even in the Control Order of the year, 1947, the vegetable oil product is defined as any vegetable oil subject to a process of hydrogenation in any form, or an admixture thereof with any other substance for edible purposes. 6. He also relied on the Vegetable Oil Products (Standard Of Quality) Order, 1975 prescribing the standard of the vanaspathi. According to him, the exemption with regard to the vanaspathi was available even earlier and he has relied upon the extract of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules of the year, 1976, where it was clearly mentioned that the vanaspathi covered under the Vegetable Oil Products (Control) Order, 1947 shall be exempted from the above Rules. In fact, the same thing was also repeated in the edition of 1994. 7. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners even by 13.07.2000 when the offence was said to have been committed, the exemption with regard to vanaspathi is available and consequently, no licence is required. There is nothing on record to show that vanaspathi covered under the Vegetable Oil Products (Control) Order, 1947 is different from the vanaspathi, which is prescribed under the control order of the year 1998. Both are treated as hydrogenated vegetable edible oil for human consumption. 8. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, even when prior to the date of offence vanaspathi is exempted, the reasoning of the lower appellate Court that it is effective only from 2001 cannot be accepted. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the conviction against the revision petitioners is not sustainable. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 are found not guilty for the offence under Rule 50 of the Rules and acquitted of the charge. The amount of fine paid by them shall be refunded. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date: 01-11-2011 INL