SRI KRISHAN GOPAL SHARMA AND ANRversusGOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. O F DELHI

A                SRI KRISHAN GOPAL SHARM\ AND ANR.
                                          \'.

                     GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. < F DELHI

                                   MAY 7, 1996.

B                    [G.N. RAY AND B.L. HANS,,RIA, JJ.]

          Prevelltiun of Food Adulteration Rules, 19:·5: Rule 47.

          Pa11 Masa/a and Mo11th Freshner-Samphs of-Co11tained sacchaiin
C to exte11t of 2000 and 2450 p.p.m. in violation 'f the then R.47-Ciimina/
    cases initiated against the accused-Subsequent(' 1 R.47 anu:nded to pennit
  sacchaii11 to extent of 8000 p.p.m.-Accused filea petition in High Cowt for
  q11ashing of C1imina/ case.1-He/d: uname11ded R•i/e 47 valid and operative
  at relevant tilne-Petition rightly disniissed by Hi!: 11 Court-However, in view
  of amendment of Rule 47 use of saccharin to exit it of 2000 a11d 2450 p.p.m.
D was 11ot injwious to health-Accused committed only technical offence-In
  the circtunstances of the case, c1in1inal cases al:,' iinst accused quashed on
    payn1cnt of costs quantified at Rs. 7,50(}-Prevenion of Food Adulteration
    Act, 1954, Ss 7 and 16.

           Pa11 Masa/a-{fser of sacclzmi11 in-Restiic io11 of-Imposed by Rule
E
    making authmity on basis of huma11 know/edp widely accepted by ex-
    perts'-Addition of sacchaii11 to extent of 8000 p.1 '.m. a/lowed by amendi11g
    Rule 47 011 basis of later research on effect of racchaiin 011 human sys-
    tem--He/d: Validity of R11/e 47 p1ior to its amendment could not be chal-
    /e11ged on gro1111d of arbitrary and cap1icious exercise of power.
F
          Words a11d Phrases : "Pan Masa/a" a11d "A 'outh Freslmer"-Mea11ing
    of-!11 the co11text of Sectio11 2(v) of Prevention 'f Food Adulteration Act,
    1954.

           Samples of pan masala and mouth freshner purchased from the
G    appellants-accused were found adulterated by tlie Public Analyst as both
     the samples contained saccharin to the extent >f 2000 p.p.m. and 2450
     p.p.m. respectively. At the relevant time when the said samples were
     purchased, under the existing Rule 44(g) and Ru e 47 of the Prevention of
     Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, the saccharin cantents as found by the
H    Public Analyst in the samples were in violation of· he Rules. Criminal cases
                                         472
                   K.G. SHARMA v. GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELI-II                   473

     against the ap11ellants-accused were initiated in the Court of the A
     Metropolitan Magistrate under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of
     Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on the basis of the complaint made by th~
     Local Health Authority. The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the
     appellants-accused under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
     1973 for quashing the aforesaid criminal cases.
                                                                                      B
           Jn the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the accused persons it
     was contended that addition of saccharin to the extent of 8000 p.p.m. in
     pan masala bad been allowed by subse<1uent amendment of Rule 47 of the
     Rules; that the articles sold were not alleged to be injurious to health; that
     there was no allegation that any other injurious substance was added to          C
     the articles sold making them potential health hazards; that pall' masala
     and mouth fresbner were not of inferior <1uality and substandard; and that
     it must be held that even before amendment of Rule 47 of the Rules use of
     saccharin to the extent found did not constitute an offence under the Act.

                                                                                      D
           Disposing of the appeal, this Court

           HELD: 1.1. At the relevant time when the samples'of the pan masala
     and the mouth freshner were taken, the saccharin content as found by the
     Public Analyst in the said articles of food was in violation of Rule 47 of
     the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The pan masala and the E
     mouth freshner are undoubtedly within the meaning of 'food' under Sec-
     tion 2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 'Food' under
     the said Act has been defined very widely. The validity of Rule 47 prior to
     its amendment restricting the user of saccharin in pan masala cannot be
     challenged on the ground of arbitrary and capricious exercise of power by F
     the Rule making authority. It bas not been demonstrated that despite
     widely accepted view by the experts about the effect on saccharin on human
     system on the basis of information flowing from research and analysis, the
     restriction of user of saccharin in Pan Masala or Mouth }""reshner as
     imposed in Rule 47 of the Rules at the relevant time was wholly arbitrary, G
     unjust and capricious. Human knowledge is not static. The conception
     about the harmful effect of saccharin on human system has undergone
     changes because of information derived from further research and
     analysis. The knowledge about the effect of saccharin on human system as
     accepted today may undergo a change in future on the basis of further
     knowledge flowing from subsequent research and analysis and it may not H
..
'
    474                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996J SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   be unlikely that previous view about saccharin may be found to be correct
    later on. If the Rule making authority on the basis of human knowledge
    widely accepted by the expert framed rule by imposing restriction of user
    of saccharin in Pan Masala or Mouth Freshner at a particular point of
    time, such exercise of power must be held to have been validity made,
    founded on good reasons; and challenge of the Rule on the score of
B   arbitrary and capricious exercise of power must fail. [478-H, 479-A-E]

        2.1. At the relevant time, saccharin content in Pan Masala and
  Mouth Freshner to the extent of 2000 and 2450 p.p.m. as found by the
  Analyst was not permissible under the Prevention of Food Adulteration
C Rules 1955. Rule 47 was valid and operative at the relevant time. Hence,
  there had been violation of the Food Adulteration Act and the Rules
  framed thereunder in selling pan Masala and Mouth Freshner with sac-
  charin content to the extent of 2000 and 2450 p.p.m. Hence, the complaints
  made by the Health Department and initiation of criminal cases against
D the accused cannot be held to be without justification. It cannot also be
  contended that on the face of the complaint, no offence was prima facie
    committed. Hence, the impugned decision of the High Court in dismissing
    the applications under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
    cannot be held to be unjustified. [482-A-C]

E         2.2. Even if the complaint is accepted to be correct, the only offence
    committed by the appellants amounts to technical violation of the mandate
    of Rule 47 for adding saccharin to the extent of 2000 and 2450 ppm in the
    Chutki Pan Masala and Mouth Freshner. Such addition of saccharin
    cannot be held lo be injurious to health because, considering later findings
F   on research and analysis on the effect of saccharin on human system,
    addition of saccharin to the extent 8000 ppm in Pan Masala has been
    allowed by amending Rule 47. The articles sold are not alleged to be
    injurious to health and such allegations, even if made, cannot be accepted.
    There is no allegation that any other injurious substance was added to the
    articles sold making them potentially health hazards. It Is also not the case
G   that Pan Masala and Mouth Freshner were of inferior quality and sub-
    standard. In a case like this, the offence committed is on account of
    technical violation of Role 47. [482-D-F]

          Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange and Ors., (1974] 2
H SCR 154, followed.
       K.G. SHARMA v. GOVf. OFN.C.T. OF DELHI [G.N. RAY, J.]            475

      Andhra Pradesh Grain and Seed Merchants Association v. Union of A
India, [1971] 1 SCR 166 and Municipal C01poration of Delhi v. Charanjit
Lal, (1980) 1 PFC SS, referred to.

      3.1. As use of saccharin to the extent of 2000 and 24SO ppm was not
injurious to health at any point of time, it must be held that even before
amendment of Rule 47 such use of saccharin to the above extent did not         B
constitute an offence for adulterating food with substances injurious to
health. [481-H]

     32. The criminal cases against the appellants are directed to be
quashed on payment of costs at Rs. 7 ,SOO in each of these appeals as, oi1     C
conviction of the appellants in the criminal cases initiated against them,
such fine would have met the ends of justice. [483-C]

      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                     Criminal Appeal
Nos. 630-31 of 1996 Etc.
                                                                               D
      From the judgment and Order dated 15.2.95 of the Delhi High Court
in Cr!. Misc. (Main) Petition Nos. 2802/94 and 3202 of 1994.

      G.L. Sanghi, Randhir Jain, M.K. Gupta, S.S. Mishra and A.K. Lal
for the Appellants.
                                                                               E
     Ms. K. Amareshwari, Ms. Asha Nair and B. Krishna Prasad, for the
Respondents.

      The .Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      G.N. RAY, J. Leave granted .. Heard learned counsel for the parties.     F
       Order dated 15.2.1995 passed by the Delhi High Court in Criminal
 Misc. (Main) Petition No. 2802 of 1994 and Criminal Misc. (Main) Petition
 No. 3202 of 1994 dismissing the application of the appellants under Section
 482 of the Code of Crittiinal Procedure for quashing the Criminal case No.    G
 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 complaint mad.e by the
.Local Health Authority of the Delhi Administration is under challenge.

      Criminal Case No. 149 of 1988 relates to the sample of Chutki Pa~        H
              •
    476                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 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 nominee. Case No. 42 of 1990 relates to sample of Chutki
    Mouth Fresher purchased by Food inspector D.P. Singh on 21.8.1989 from
    accused No. 1 Krishna Gopal Sharma, the nominee of the manufacturer
B   M/s. K.K. Karya.Iaya. According to the prosecution case both the samples
    of Chutki Pan Masala and Chutki Mouth Freshner were analysed by the
    Public Analyst, Delhi and the Analyst found both the samples as adul-
    terated because it contained saccharin to the extent of 2000 p.p.m. in the
    first sample and 2450 p.p.m. in the second sample. It may be stated here
c   that at the relevant time when the said· samples were purchased, under the
    existing Rule 44(g) and Rule 47 of the prevention of Food Adulteration
    Rules, the saccharin contents as found by the Public Analyst in the samples
    were in violation of the Rules.

D         The learned Metropolitan Magistrate in dismissing the applications
    made under Section 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure held, inter alia,
    that although from 9th November, 1993, Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food
    Adulteration Rules 1955 had undergone a change and saccharin to the
    extent of 8000 ppm in pan masala has been permitted under the amended
    Rule 47, even then accused were not entitled lo get any benefit of sub-
E   sequent amendment of Rule 47. As at the relevant time, the accused had
    sold the Pan Masala and Mouth Freshner in violation of the mandate under
    the act and the Rules framed thereunder, the prosecution initiated on
    account of such violation was legal and justified. The learned Judge relied
    on th~ Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Municipal Co1pora-
    tion of Delhi. v. Charanjit Lal, (1980) l PFC page 55 wherein similar
F
    contentions were negatived by the Full Bench.

          Against the said decision, the appellants moved the Delhi High Court
    under Section 482 of the Code of Crin1inal Procedure inter a/ia praying for
G   quashing the said criminal cases. By the impugned judgment, the High
    Court held that at the relevant time, when the samples were taken and
    analysed, the saccharin content as found by the analyst in the samples was
    not permissible. Hence, the offence under the Food Adulteration Act had
    been committed and consideration of subsequent change of the permissible
    limit of saccharin in Pan Masala and Mouth Freshner was not germane.
H   The High Court, therefore, dismissed the Misc. Cases arising out of Section
       KG.SHARMA v. GOVT.OFN.C.T.OFDELHI[G.N.RAY,J.]                      477

482 of the Criminal Procedure Code with an observation that it would open        A
to the accused petitioners to urge the implication of subsequent change in
the Rules by permitting user of saccharin upto the extent of 8000 ppm in
Pan Masala at the hearing of the criminal cases.

      Mr. Sanghi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants,       B
has strongly contended that the exten.t of saccharin since found by the
analyst cannot be held as injurious to health because on the basis of further
research and analysis about the effect of saccharin on human body, it has
been ascertained that presence of saccharin upto a reasonable limit was
not at all injurious to health. Precisely for such change in the outlook, Rule
47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules has been changed with            c
effect from 9th November, 1993, by indicating that in a Pan Masala, the
saccharin content even upto 8000 ppm is permissible. Mr. Sanghi has
submitted that at the relevant time when 2000 ppm of saccharin was added
to the Chutki Pan Masala and the mouth Freshner, the accused in fact had
not committed any illegal act by adding saccharin in quantities no.ted           D
because such quantity of saccharin was not injurious to health. It was only
because our knowledge about the effect of saccharin on human system was
  iinperfect, an unreasOnable embargo on the user of saccharin in Pan
 Masala and Mouth Freshner was imposed in Rule 47. As it is quite evident
 that imposition of restriction on user of saccharin in Pan Masala and·
 Mouth Freshner was .unjustified because of lack of knowledge about the- E
 effect of saccharin on human system, and as it can not be contended that
 presence of saccharin to the extent of 2000 ppm and 2450 ppm in Pan
 Masala and Mouth Freshner was either injurious to health or such. user of
 saccharin had adversely affected the quality of the articles by degenerating
 the same, it must be held that the accused appellants had in fact did not F
 commit any improper act by selling an adulterated food. Because of
 imperfect knowledge, the wrong restriction was imposed under the Preven-
 tion of Food Adulteration Rules at the relevant time and such unjust
 imposition of restriction of u~er of saccharin must be held to be arbitrary,
 unjust and without any reasonable basis. Mr. Sanghi has· submitted that it G
 is nobody's case that the Chutki Pan Masala or Mouth Freshner since sent.
 for analysis containe.d any substance which had degenerated .the quality of
 the articles or made them injurious ta health. Hence, it cannot be reasonab-
 ly contended that in fact the said articles were adulterated food even at the
 time of collection of,the samples. Mr. Sanghi has submitted that in the
. aforesaid facts, it \vill not be fair and proper to prosecute the accused and H
    478                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996[ SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   to punish them for using saccharin in Pan Masala and Mouth Freshner to
    an extent much below the permissible limit which has been accepted by the
    concerned authority by rectifying the misconceived notion about the effect
    of saccharin by amending Rule 47 of the Rules. The alleged violation being
    based on misconception should not be countenanced by Court and the
    accused should not be exposed to trial for a criminal offence when in fact
B
    no offence had been committed by the accused. In the facts of the case,
    the prosecution will amount Lo gross abuse of process of law. Hence, prayer
    for quashing should have been allowed by the High Court.

           Mrs. Amareshwari, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
C   respondent, has however submitted that imposition of restriction of adding
    saccharin as contained in Rule 47 of Prevention of Food Adulteration
    Rules al the relevant Lime was not arbitrary and capricious. Such imposi-
    tion was fairly made consistent with the existing knowledge about harmful
    effect of saccharin on the human system. Mrs. Amareshwari has submitted
D   that it is nobody's case that at the relevant time on the basis of the available
    information flowing for research and analysis there was no occasion for
    putting embargo on the free user of saccharin on the articles sold and
    restriction in the user of saccharin in Ruic 47 of the Rules was wholly
    arbitrary, capricious and ipsi dixit of the Ruic making authority. Rule 47 of
    the Rules having been fairly made in proper exercise of the power consis-
E   tent with the then available information on the effect of saccharin on
    human system, it must. be held that such Rule, even though amended at a
    later stage on the basis of further knowledge on the effect of saccharin on        1

    human system, was quite legal and valid. So long Rule 47 being validly
    made was in force, compliance of the mandate under the Rules was
F   uoovoidable and prosecution initiated on violation of Rule 47 as operative
    at the relevant time cannot be held to be illegal and without any sanction
    of law. She has, therefore, submitted that the complaint made against the
    accused and consequential initiation of criminal case under the Preventing
    of Food Adulteration Act cannot be held as illegal and invalid for which
    an order of quashing such criminal cases was warranted.
G
          After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances
    of the case it appears to us that at the relevant time when the samples of
    the Pan Masala and the Mouth Freshner were taken, the saccharin content
    as found by the Public Analyst in the said articles of food was in violation
H   of Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The Pan Masala ·
      KG.SHARMA v. GOVT.OFN.C.T.OFDELHI [G.N.RAY,J.]                   479

and the Mouth Freshner are undoubtedly within the meaning of 'food' A
under Section 2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 'Food'
under said act has been defined very widely. The validity of Rule 47 prior
to its amendment in 1993 restricting the user of saccharin in pan masala
cannot be challenged on the ground of arbitrary and capricious exercise of
power by the Rule making authority. It has not been demonstrated that B
despite widely accepted view by the experts about the effect on saccharin
on human system on the basis of information flowing from research and
analysis, the restriction of user of saccharin in Pan Masala or Mouth
Freshner as imposed in Rule 47 of the Rules at the relevant time was wholly
arbitrary, unjust and capricious. Human knowledge is not static. The
conception about the harmful effect of saccharin on human ·system has
                                                                              c
undergone changes because of information derived from further research
and analysis. The knowledge about the effect of saccharin on human system
as accepted today may undergo a change in future on the basis of further
knowledge flowing from subsequent research and analysis and it may not
be unlikely that previous view about saccharin may be found to be correct D
later on. If the Rule making authority on the basis of human knowledge
widely accepted by the expert framed rule by imposing restriction of user
of saccharin in Pan Masala or Mouth Fresher at a particular point of time,
such exercise of power must be held to have been validly made, founded
on goods reasons; and challenge of the Rule on the score of arbitrary and     E
capricious exercise of power must fai1. In this connection, reference may
be made to the decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Pyarali
K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange and Ors., (1974] 2 SCR page 154.
In the said case, a dealer in scented 'supari' was charged for the offence
of having sold and retained for selling scented 'supari' with saccharin and
cyclamate, in contravention of Section 7(i)(ii) and Rule 47 of Prevention
                                                                              F
of Food Adulteration Rules. In the said case, because of such contraven-
tion, the dealer \Vas prosecuted for an offence punished under Section
16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The dealer was
convicted by the learned Magistrate by imposing a fine of Rs. 100. On
revision, the High Court enhanced the punishment to the statutory mini- G
mum of six month' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000. At the hearing of
the appeal before this Court, there was no dispute that the article in
question which was sold contained saccharin and cyclan1ate. It \vas however
urged that Section 23(i)(b) empowered the framing of Rules regarding the
articles of food for which standards were to be prescribed. It was con- H
    480                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 2S.C.R.

A   tended that 'supari' was not a food. It is further contended that neither
    saccharin nor cyclamate was a bio-chemical risk and the blanket ban on
    the use of those substances was unconstitutional amounting to un-
    reasonable restriction on the freedom of trade guaranteed under Article
    19 of the Constitution. It was also urged that although saccharin was
    permitted to be used in carbonated water, restriction of user of saccharin
B
    in 'supari' amounted to hostile discrimination.

          The Constitution Bench, however, held that 'supari' was food under
  Section 2(v) of the Act. Food was defined under the Act in a very wide
  amplitude covering any article used as food and every component which
c enters into it including even flavouring matter and condiments. It was also
  indicated in the said decision that in offences relating food articles, strict
  liability was the rule. Nothing more than actus reus was needed where
  regulation of private activity in vulnerable areas like public health was
  intended. Social defence reasonably overpowered individual freedom. Sec-
  tion 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act had cast an absolute
D
  obligation regardless of scienter, bad faith and mens rea. There would be
  no more argument about it. The law had denied the right of a dealer to
  rob the health of a consumer of 'supari'. The Constitution Bench in this
  regard noticed and relied on an earlier decision of this Court in Andltra
  Pradesh Grain and Seed Mere/tams Association v. Union of India, [1971] 1
E SCR 166.

         The Constitution Bench also indicated that it was not the judicial
  function to enter the thicket of research controversy or scientific dispute
  where Parliament has entrusted the Central Government with the power,
F and therefore, the duty of protecting public health against potential hazards
  and the Central Government after consultation with the high powered
  technical body, had prescribed the use of saccharin and cyclamate in some
  articles of food. Where expertise of a complex nature was expected of the
  State in framing rules, the exercise of that power not demonstrated as
  arbitrary must be presumed to be valid as a reasonable restriction of the
G fundamental right of the citizen and judicial review must halt at the
  frontiers. The contention that there had been a hostile discrimination
  against 'supari' vis-a-vis carbonated waters was also rejected by the Con-
  stitution Bench. It was indicated that there was a basis for the distinction
   and the Courts would not make easy assumption of unreasonableness of
H subordinate legislation. The challenge to the vires of Section 23 (ii) (b) of
          KG. SHARMA v. GOVf. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI [G.N. RAY, J.] .           481

empowering framing of rules on the vice of uncontrolled anc'. unguided             A
power was also rejected by the Constitution Bench by indicating the
guidelines implicit in the statute, built into the system, by the specifications
contained in the rule making provisions and safeguard of laying the rules
before the Houses of Parliament.

                                                                                   B
      It will be appropriate to mention here that the prayer for release on
probation on good conduct was rejected by the Constitution Bench by
indicating that the kindly application of probation principle was to be
negatived by the imperatives of social defence and improbabilities of moral
proselytisation. The Constitution Bench had also not approved imposition
of only fine in offence under Food Adulteration Act by indicating that the         c
court has jurisdiction to bring down sentence to less than minimum
prescribed in Section 16(1) of the Act provided there were adequate and
special reasons in that behalf. It was indicated that normally food offences
should be deterrently dealt with. When primary necessaries of life were
sold with spurious admixtures for making profit, the common man being D
at the mercy of vicious dealer had only protection under the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act and the Court. If offenders could get away with
trivial fine, the law woul.d be brought into contempt.

      In the back drop of aforesaid exposition of law for offences under
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act it is necessary to consider the            E
facts and circumstances of the case. In these appeals, there is no dispute
that saccharin was not added to Pan Masala and Mouth Freshner. It is
contended that even if addition of saccharin to the extent as stated to have
been found by the Analyst is accepted to have been correctly determined,
such addition, as a matter of fact, was neither injurious to health nor it         F
degenerated the articles sold so that they could be branded as adulterated
food. The ban on the use of saccharin in Pan Masala and Mouth Frcshner
was imposed on a misconception and erroneous view of its injurious effect
on human system. But later on, it has been accepted by the Rule making
authority that use of saccharin to the e'1ent of 8000 ppm in pan masala will       G
not be harmful for human consumption and Rule 47 of the Rules has been
amended. As use of saccharin to the extent of 2000 and 2450 ppm was not
injurious to health at any point of time, it must be held that even before
amendn1ent of Rule 47 such use of saccharin to the above extent did not
constitute an offence for adulterating food with substances injurious to
health.                                                                            H



      ~)
    482                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A         In our view, at the relevant time, saccharin content in Pan Masala
    and Mouth Freshner to the extent of 2000 and 2450 ppm as found by the
    Analyst was not permissible under the Prevention of Food Adulteration
    Rules. We have indicated that such Rule was valid and operative at the
    relevant time. Hence, there had been violation of the Food Adulteration
    Act and the Rules framed thereunder in selling Pan Masala and Mouth
B   Freshner with saccharin content to the extent of 2000 and 2450 ppm.
    Hence, the complaints made by the Health Department of Delhi Ad-
    ministration and initiation of criminal cases against the accused cannot be
    held to be without justification. It cannot also be contended that on the
    face of the complaint, no offence was p1ima facie committed. Hence, the
c   impugned decision of the High Court in dismissing the applications under
    Section 482 Cr. P.C. can not be held to be unjustified.

           It, however, appears to us that even if the complaint is accepted to
    be correct, the only offence committed by the appellants amounts to
D   technical violation of the mandate of Rule 47 for adding saccharin to the
    extent of 2000 and 2450 ppm in the Chutki Pan Masala and Mouth
    Freshner. Such addition of saccharin cannot be held to be injurious lo
    health because, considering later findings on research and analysis on the
    effect of saccharin on human system, addition of saccharin lo the extent
    8000 ppm in Pan Masala has been allowed by amending Rule 47. The
E   articles sold are not alleged to be injurious to health and such allegations,
    even if made, cannot be accepted. There is no allegation that any other
    injurious substance was added to the articles sold making them potentially
    health hazards. It is also not the case that Pan Masala and Mouth Freshner
    were of inferior quality and sub-standard. In a case like this, the offence
F   committed is on account of technical violation of Rule 47. It should be
    emphasised that strict adherence to Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
    and Rules framed thereunder should be insisted and enforced for
    safeguarding the interest of consumers of articles of food. In the Conslitu-
    tiwi Bench decision in Tejani's case (supra) it has been indicated that in
    order to prevent unmerited leniency in the matter of awarding sentence for
G   an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the legislature
    b)' amendment has incorporated the provision of minimum sentence. But
    it has also been indicated that the court, for adequate and special reasons,
    may bring down the minimum sentence. The Constitution Bench has also
    observed that all violations of provisions of the Act and Rules need not be
H   treated alike because "there are violations and violations". In the special
             KG.SHARMA v. GOVT.OFN.C.T. OFDELHl[G.N. RAY,J.]                483

    facts of these cases, it appears to us ihat a deterent punishment of im- A
    prisonment is not called for and imposition of fine will meet the ends of
    justice. The criminal cases were initiated on the basis of samples taken in
    1987. The accused appellants have already faced the ordeal of criminal
    trials for a number of years. In the aforesaid circumstances, further agony
    of criminal trial need not be prolonged. Conclusion of the criminal cases
    will also save time and expenditure of the respondent.
                                                                                B

          In that view of the matter, we direct for quashing the criminal cases
    in question on payment of costs at Rs. 7500 in each of these appeals as in
    our view, on conviction of the appellants in the criminal cases initiated
    against them, such fme would have met the ends of justice. The appeals
    are accordingly disposed of.
                                                                                   c
          In view of decision in the criminal appeals the Special Leave Petition
    (Criminal) No. 2650 of 1995 arising out of the order of dismissal passed on
    the writ petition filed by the petitioner in the Delhi High Court for
    challenging the vires of Rule 47 of the prevention of Food Adulteration        D
    Rules, stand dismissed.

-   v.s.s.                                     Appeals and Petition dismissed.