9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt for analysis. The Public Analyst issued opinion on 07-07-2007 that the sample contained vegetable oil and also contained Benzoic Acid, which was not declared on the label. The Public Analyst opined that the sample was both adulterated and misbranded. On the basis of the report of the Analyst, a case was booked against the four petitioners. 2. Sri M.S. Srinivasa Iyengar, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused contended that in view of Appendix-B Clause A.25.03 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1956 ('the PFA Rules' for short) and in view of Rule 32 (b) read with proviso after Rule 32 (f) of the PFA Rules, the petitioners are not guilty of committing the offences under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Sections 7 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al coating, but does not include flour confectionery, pastry and biscuit products. The coating shall be of chocolate that meets the requirements of one or more of the chocolate types mentioned above. The amount of chocolate component of the coating shall not be less than 25 per cent of the total mass of the finished product." 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the presence of hydrogenated vegetable oils are not permitted in the chocolate portion of the sample and not in the Filled Portion of the chocolate. He further admitted that it would be tantamount to adulteration so long as hydrogenated vegetable oils are found in the chocolate portion. 7. While so, the Public Analyst Report did not distingu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontaining vegetable oil. That being so, unless the Analyst Report specifically disclosed that the prohibited vegetable oils were found in the chocolate portion, it cannot be held that the sample was adulterated. I wholly agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Analyst Report failed to show that the sample was adulterated within the meaning of the PFA Act since it was not shown that the chocolate portion contained the prohibited hydrogenated vegetable oils. 11. It may be recalled that the Analyst Report found that the sample did not confirm to standard on two grounds. The 1st of the grounds is that the sample contained vegetable oils. I have already concluded that the sample cannot be considered to be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
