1966 CRI. L. J. 333 ::32 Cut L T 83 ::ILR (1965) Cut 813

Orissa High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): R. K. Dash , J

(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (37 of 1954) , S.2(i), S.2(j)— Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (1955) , R.28— Ahar Dal coloured with metalline yellow - Held adulterated - Its use even as preservative not permitted. Metalline Yellow being prohibited colour under rule 28, the colouring of the Ahar dal in question with this substance comes within the mischief of Section 2(j) of the Act, and the dal must be held to be adulterated : The colour itself being a prohibited substance under the Rules, obviously because it is detrimental to human health, the contention that it was meant as a preservative cannot be accepted.(Para 10) (B) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (37 of 1954) , S.16(1)(a), S.7(i), S.2(v)(a)— Sale of adulterated ahar dal - That it was sold as article of food need not he proved. Ahar dal being one of the common articles of food in India as used in its various forms, S. 7 prohibits its sale in any kind of adulterated form. The sale of such article of food in an adulterated form amounts to an offence under Section 16. The Courts are not concerned with the question of the actual use of the article or the nature of its use, once it is found to be an article of food. The prosecution therefore need not show ....