Jagdish Raj vs The State of Punjab

C.G. Suri, J.—The Petitioner''s conviction and sentence under sections 7 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for the adulteration of magaz tarbuz (water-melon seeds) cannot be sustained in view of the Supreme Court ruling in M.V. Krishnan Nambissan Vs. State of Kerala, , simply because no standards for this commodity have been prescribed by the Rules framed under the said Act. In the case cited, the appellant had been convicted for the adulteration of buttermilk which he was carrying for sale. It cannot be laid that buttermilk is not ''food'' as denned in the Act or that an unlimited dilution of the liquid with water would not amount to adulteration at one stage or the other. In spite of these facts, the Hon''ble Judges of the Supreme Court held that no conviction under the Act could be sustained unless the Rules prescribed certain standards for the particular item of food.

Shri Manmohan Krishan Mahajan conceded that no standards for magaz tarbuz have been prescribed by Schedule ''B'' or any other provision of the Rules or the Act.

The revision petition is accordingly accepted and the petitioner''s conviction and sentence are set aside. He is hereby acquitted.