http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: M.RAJA MOHAMMED AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: FOOD INSPECTOR, PALGHAT MUNICIPALITY

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/11/1991

BENCH: YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J) BENCH: YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J) SHETTY, K.J. (J)

CITATION:  1992 AIR 1611            1991 SCR  Supl. (2) 390  1992 SCC  (1) 372        JT 1991 (4)   503  1991 SCALE  (2)1098

ACT:     Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955: Rules 44(g) and  47  (As  amended by Prevention  of  Food   Adulteration (Third  Amendment)  Rules, 1968 and as they stood  prior  to Amendment of 15.4.1988)--,Appendix ’B’---Restriction on sale of      Articles      containing/Irtificial       sweetener/ Saccharin--Prescription  of  standard of  saccharin  or  any artificial sweetener in Appendix ’B’ is not  relevant-Stand- ard must be prescribed in respect of Article of sale--Stand- ard must permit user of sweetener in the Article--No  stand- ard  laid down for Supari and Pan Masala--Held  addition  of artificial  sweetener saccharin in Pan Masala and Supari  is prohibited.

HEADNOTE:     The appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 553/89) was prose- cuted  for  selling  adulterated supari  with  admixture  of saccharin.  He  filed a petition in the  Kerala  High  Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for  quash- ing the criminal proceedings which was dismissed by a single judge.  Against the decision of the single judge  an  appeal was filed in this Court.     The  appellant (In Criminal Appeal No. 283/91) was  also prosecuted for selling adulterated Supari but was  acquitted by  the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad. On  appeal  the Kerala High Court set aside his acquittal and convicted  him under section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food  Adul- teration Act and sentenced him to imprisonment for 6  months and  a  fine of Rs.1000. Against the order the  Kerala  High Court an appeal was filed in this Court.     The  appellant (In Criminal Appeal No. 284/91) was  con- victed  ruder section 7(i) and (v) read with sections  16(i) (a) (ii) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act for sale of adulterated supari with admixture of saccharin. He  filed a  Revision Petition in the Kerala High Court and  a  Single Judge  dismissed the same. Against the order of  the  Single Judge an appeal was filed in this Court.     The  facts  in the connected civil  appeal  (Nos.  3708- 13/89)  are that a batch of writ petitions was filed in  the Andhra Pradesh High 391

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

Court  for a declaration that the admixture of saccharin  in supari  was in accordance with Rule 44 of the Prevention  of Food  Adulteration Rules, 1955 and for restraining  the  re- spondents  from  interfering with the business  of  sale  of supari. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the  writ petitions. Against the decision of the Division Bench  Union of India has filed appeals in this Court.     Civil  Appeal No. 1897/91 is directed against the  order of  the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court  which  held that the learned Single Judge should have declined jurisdic- tion for the reason that the relief claimed was of a general character for a declaration that the admixture of  saccharin in Roja Scented betelnut is not a blanket ban under Rule  47 read  with Appendix ’B’ of the Prevention of Food  Adultera- tion Rules, 1955.     Criminal Appeal No. 722/91 is directed against the order of  the  High  Court of Kerala setting aside  the  order  of acquittal passed by the trial court and remanding the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal according to law.  The High Court did not agree with the submission that the  arti- cle  of  Supari was not adulterated as  saccharin  could  be added  to Supari. Accordingly it held that  saccharin  could not be added to supari and consequently remanded the  matter to the trial court for fresh disposal according to law.     In  appeals to this court it was contended on behalf  of the  accused that on the construction of Rule 44(c) it  per- mits  sale  of  Article of food  which  contains  artificial sweetener with the standard as laid down in Appendix ’B’  to Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Disposing the appeals, this Court,    FIELD: 1. Rule 44(g) of the Prevention of Food  Adultera- tion Rules, 1955 indicates that sale of any article of  food which  contains artificial sweetener is banned. The  ban  is lifted only if such artificial sweetener is permitted to  be added  to the article of food for which standards have  been laid  down  in Appendix ’B’ to the Rules. Rule 47  in  other form  specifically  bars saccharin or any other  article  of artificial  sweetener  to be added in any article  of  food, except  where the addition of such artificial  sweetener  is permitted  in  accordance with the standards  laid  down  in Appendix’  ’B’.  Thus both Rules 44(g) and 47  constitute  a total blanket ban on the addition of any artificial sweeten- er including saccharin to any article of food 392 unless  standards  for that article of  food  is  prescribed which  authorises the use of such an  artificial  sweetener. [398 G, 399 A-B]     2.   The  prescription of standard of saccharin  or  any artificial  sweetener in Appendix ’B’ is really  irrelevant. It  is  not the question of standard  being  prescribed  for saccharin which is irrelevant what is relevant is the stand- ard being prescribed in Appendix ’B’ of the article of  food which  is  being  sold and which standard  permits  user  of saccharin.  This  is the real intention of  the  legislature while enacting Rule 44(g) of the Rules. [399 E-F]     3.  What one has to see is the article of food in  which the artificial sweetener is sought to be added. The  article which  was  being  sold should contain a  standard  and  the standard should permit artificial sweetener to be added.  If the standards for that article of food is provided in Appen- dix ’B’ to the Rules and such standards permit the  addition of  saccharin  or any other artificial sweetener,  then  and then only saccharin or any other artificial sweetener  could be added and not otherwise. [399 A-C]     4.   Admittedly no standard has been laid down  for  Pan

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

Masala  or Supari i.e. the article of food which  was  being sold.  Therefore, the exception permitted by clause  (g)  of Rule 44 has no application and no relevance. [398 H, 399-A]     Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange and  Ors., [1974] 1 S.C.C. 167, explained and applied.     State of Maharashtra v. Ranjitbhai Babubhai  Suratwalla, [1979]  FAJ  231;  Thummalapudi Venkata Gopala  Rao  v.  The State.  [1986] Crl. L.J. 1699, M/s Wahab and Co. a  proprie- tary  concern represented by its’ proprietor N.A. Wahab  son of  N. Mohammad Sheriff v. Food  lnspector.  Tiruchirappalli Municipal Corpn., Trichy. [1990] L.W. (Crl.) 437; Kailash v. The  ,State  of Rajasthan, [1985] 1. F.A.C.  282;  State  of Assam v. Ram Karani anti Ors., (1987) 3 All India Prevention of  Food Adulleration Journal 153; Ujjain Municipal  Corpn., Ujjain v. Chetan Das, (1985) I F.A.C. 46, overruled.     State by public prosecutor v.K.R. Balakrishnan, (1986) 1 F.A.C.  384; Food  Inspector v. Usman. (1985)  K.L.T.  1038; Krishna Chandra  (In jail) v. State of Uttar pradesh, (1990) 1 F.A.C. 35, approved. 393

JUDGMENT:     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:Criminal Appeal No.  722 of 1991.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated  21.12.1990  of  the Kerala High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 425 of 1989.     B.R.L. lyanger, R. Mohan, V. Krishnamurthy and V.  Bala- chandran for the Appellants.     P.S.  Poti,  T.T. Kunhikannan, E.M.S..Anam,  Ms.  Indira Sawlmey,  P. Parmeswaran, Ms. Sushma Suri, K. Ram Kumar  and Y.P. Rao for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J. Special leave granted.     This  order  will dispose of six  matters  namely,  Crl. Appeal Nos. 553/ 89, 283/91,284/91, Civil Appeal Nos.  3708- 13/89,  1897/91  and Criminal Appeal arising out  of  S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2647/91. FACTS Crl. A. No. 553/89     This  appeal  arises from the judgment  of  the  learned Single  Judge  of the High Court of Kerala dated  6th  June, 1988 whereby the learned Single Judge declined to quash  the prosecution  of the petitioner therein under Section 482  of the  Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner therein  has been  prosecuted  for selling  adulterated  "Ashoka  special supari" on the basis of a certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory showing that the article of  Food purchased from the accused contained 2000 mgs/kg.  saccharin and  that the sample does not conform to the  Prevention  of Food  Adulteration Rules, 1955, (hereinafter referred to  as the  Rules). The High Court took the view the  report  prima facie goes to show that accused has sold adulterated article of  food and consequently declined to quash the  prosecution under Section 482 of the Code. [1988 (2) K.L.T. 5]. Crl. A. No. 283/91     This appeal is directed against the order of the  Kerala High  Court  dared 22nd January, 1991 accepting  the  appeal against the order of 394 acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad, in  S.T  No. 36 of 1988. The appeal was  filed  against  the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 3 therein and out of whom N. Raja  Mohammed,  the Joint Managing Director of  M/S  N.V.K.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

Mohammed  Sultan Rawther (P) Ltd., is the  appellant  before us. The High Court confirmed the acquittal of second accused but   sentenced  the  appellant  before  us  under   Section 16(1)(a)(i)  of the Prevention of Food Adulteration  Act  to undergo simple imprisonment for six month and to pay a  fine of Rs. 1,000 with a default sentence of simple  imprisonment for two more months. Crl. A.NO. 284/91.     This appeal is filed against the order dated 21st Decem- ber,  1990 passed by the learned Single Judge of the  Kerala High Court dismissing the revision petition whereby  accused No. I therein was sentenced to pay Rs. 1,000 as fine and the two other accused were sentenced to simple imprisonment  for six  months  each and Rs. 1,000 as fine and  in  default  of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a  period of  one  month more. Their conviction  were  recorded  under Section 7(i) and (v) read with Section (16) (1) (a) (ii)  of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for having sold Roja Sungandha  Suparit with admixture of saccharin.  The  sample was taken on 22nd December, 1986. Civil Appeal Nos. 3708-13/89     These  appeals are filed by the Union of  India  against the  judgment  of the Division Bench of the  High  Court  of Andhra  Pradesh dated 16th June, 1986 whereby  the  Division Bench  following the judgment of a learned Single  Judge  in Crl. Misc. Petition No. 1569 of 1984 allowed the writ  peti- tions.  A batch of writ petitions were filed for a  declara- tion  that  the admixture of saccharin  in  Anjali  Sugandhi Supari; Roja Scented Betelnut; Nizam Supari; A.R.R.  Saugan- tha Supari and Ajantha Sugandhi Supari is in accordance with Rule 44 of the Rules and restraining the respondents/ appel- lant  herein from interfering with the business of  sale  of Supari with such an admixture. Civil Appeal No. 1897/91     This  appeal is directed against the order of the  Divi- sion  Bench  of the Kerala High Court dated  22nd  November, 1990 whereby the learned Division Bench was inclined to take the view that the learned Single Judge should have  declined jurisdiction for the reason that the relief claimed 395 is of a general character for a declaration that the  admix- ture of saccharin in Roja Scented Betelnut is not a  blanket ban under Rule 47 read with Appendix B of the Prevention  of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Crl. Appeal at, sing out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2647/91     This  appeal is directed against the order of  the  High Court of Kerala dated 21st December, 1990 setting aside  the order  of acquittal passed by the trial court and  remanding the  matter to the trial court for fresh disposal  according to  law. The trial court had inter alia taken the view  that the sample of Supari in question was taken contrary to  Rule 22-A  of  the Rules. The High Court took the view  that  the sample  was properly taken. On a plea being raises that  the article of Supari was not adulterated as saccharin could  be added  to  Supari,  the High Court did not  agree  with  the submission  and  held that saccharin could not be  added  to Supari  and consequently the High Court remanded the  matter to the trial court for fresh disposal according to law.     The  case inter alia involves interpretation of Rule  44 (g)  of the Rules before its deletion with effect from  15th April, 1988 and the amendment of Rule 47 by Notification No. GSR 454 (E) dated 15.4.1988 (with effect from 15.4.1989)  as covered by GSR 1157 (E) dated 9.12.1988. Rules 44(g) and  47 as  they originally stood and as they stood modified at  the relevant  time of taking of the sample, figured  during  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

arguments and they are extracted hereunder with comments :-               "44.Sale  of certain admixtures  prohibited  -               Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 43,  no               person shall either himself or by any  servant               or agent sell-               (g)  any  article of food which  contains  any               artificial sweetener, except Saccharin, or  in               the  preparation of which any such  artificial               sweetener has been used".               "               "47. Addition of Saccharin to be mentioned  on               the label.               Saccharin  may  be added to any  food  if  the               container  of  such food is labelled  with  an               adhesive declaratory label. which shall be  in               the form given below :                    This    .....   (name  of  food)    .....               contains an admixture of Saccharin".     These Rules held the field from November 24, 1956  until August 24, 1968 when they were further amended. The  Preven- tion  of  Food Adulteration (Third  Amendment)  Rules  1968, redrafted Rules 44 (g) and 47. and it 396 is these Rules which were extant at the time of the  alleged offence.  It is proper at this stage to reproduce these  two Rules:               "44.  Sale of certain admixtures prohibited  -               Notwithstanding  the provisions of Rule 43  no               person  shall  either  by himself  or  by  any               servant or agent sell --               (g)  any  article of food which  contains  any               artificial sweetener except where such artifi-               cial sweetener is permitted in accordance with               the standards laid down in Appendix ’B ’.               "47.Addition  of  artificial sweetener  to  be               mentioned  on  the  label---Saccharin  or  any               other artificial sweetener shall not be  added               to any article of food, except where the addi-               tion of such artificial sweetener is permitted               in accordance with the stand-               ards  laid down in Appendix ’B’ and where  any               artificial sweetener is added to any food  the               container of such food shall be labelled  with               an  adhesive-declaratory label which shall  be               in the form given below:                    This    .....   (name  of  food)    .....               contains an admixture  .....  (name of               the artificial sweetener)".     The  Supreme Court in its decision Pyarali K. Tejani  v. Mahadeo  Ramchandra Dange and Others, [1974] 1 SCC 167  took the view that at the relevant time the article like  saccha- rin  could not be added to the Supan in view of the  amended Rules  44(g)  and 47 of the Rules. It will be  noticed  that till date no standard has been prescribed in Appendix ’B’ to the Rules so far as the Supari is concerned. Therefore under Rule  44(g) there was a total prohibition of use of  saccha- rin,  which  is an artificial sweetener, to any  article  of food including Supari and regarding saccharin it was specif- ically provided in Rule 47 that it shall not be added to any article  of food, except where the addition of such  artifi- cial sweetener is permitted in accordance with the standards laid down in Appendix ’B’. Therefore, under Rule 47 again so far  as  saccharin is concerned and for which  no  standards have been prescribed in Appendix ’B’ there was total  prohi- bition  of adding the same in any article of food. This  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

the  view taken in the aforesaid case of Pyarali K.  Tejani. For  the  period relevant for the Tejani’s  case  the  Rules permitted saccharin to be added in case of carbonated  water in  item  5(B)-A  1.01.01 only but no  such  permission  was noticed by the Supreme Court in the case of Supari. Thus the Supreme  Court  had  settled the law, as far  as  the  Rules between August 24, 1968 and 15th April, 1988 are  concerned. We may mention that w.e.f. 15.4. 1988 Rule 44(g) was omitted and Rule 47 was substituted by new Rules. 397     However, it appears that with effect from 26th May, 1971 for  the first time a standard was prescribed for  Saccharin Sodium as item No. A.07.10 in Appendix ’B’ to the Rules.     After the provision of standard for Saccharin Sodium  in Appendix ’B’ to the Rules, the Bombay High Court in the case of  State of Maharashtra v. Ranjitbhai Babubhai  Suratwalla, [1979]  FAJ 231 (Bombay) distinguished the judgment  of  the Supreme  Court  in Tejani’s case (supra) and took  the  view that because standards; have been prescribed for  saccharin, Rule 47 permitted its user in article of food. This view was followed  by Single Judge of the Andhra Preadesh High  Court in  the case reported as Thummalapudi Venkata Gopala Rao  v. The  State,  (1986)Cr1 LJ 1699. Asimilar view was  taken  by another  Single Bench of the Madras High Court in  the  case M/s..Wahab and Co., a Proprietory concern represented by its proprietor  M..A  Wahab son of N. Mohamed  Sheriff  v.  Food Inspector,  Tiruchirappalli  Municipal  corparation  Trichy; (1990)L.W.(CrI.)437  with out noticing the  earlier  cotract view  of  the same High Court reported as  State  by  Public Prosecutor  v. K..R. Balakrishnan, (1986) (I) FAC  384.  The Rajasthan  High Court  also took the same view in  the  case reported  as Kailash v. The State of Rajasthan,  (1985)  (I) FAC  282.  The Gauhati High Court in the  case  reported  as State  of  Assam v. Rant Karani and Others  (1987)  (3)  All India Prevention of food Adulteration Journal 153  following some  of  the aforesaid decisions also look  the  view  that addition of artificial sweetener like saccharin in Supari or Pan-Ka-Masala,  if it conforms to the standard laid down  in clause  A.07.10  of the Appendix ’B’ of the Rules,  did  not violate  Rule  44(g)  read with Rule 47 of  the  Rules.  The Madhya  Pradesh  High Court in the case reported  as  Ujjain Municipal Corporation, Ujjain v. Chetan Das, (1985) (I)  FAC 46.  followed the view of the Bomaby High Court in the  case reported as Ranjitbhai Babubhai Suratwalla (supra).     On  the other banal the High court of Kerala,  Allahabad and  another earlier Single Bench of the Madras  High  Court took the view that prescription of standard of saccharin  in Appendix ’B’ to the Rules could not alter the interpretation of Rule 44(g) nor help could be taken from interpretaion  of Rule 47. The Kerala High Court in the case reported as  Food Inspector  v. Usman, (1985) K.L.T. 1038 noticed the view  of the  Bombay High Court in Ranjitbhai  Babubhai  Suratwalla’s case (supra) and dissented from it and held:               "Rule  47 of the Prevention of Food  Adultera-               tion  Rules  provides that  saccharin  or  any               other artificial sweetener shall not be  added               to any article of food, except where the addi-               tion of               398               such  artificial  sweetener  is  permitted  in               accordance  with  the standards laid  down  in               Appendix ’B’ and where any artificial sweeten-               er is added to any food, the container of such               food  shall be labelled with an  adhesive  de-               claratory  label  to that effect.  That  means

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

             unless  and to the extent in  accordance  with               the  standards  prescribed  in  Appendix   ’B’               saccharin  or any other  artificial  sweetener               are prohibited material in food articles.  For               pan  supari no standard is fixed  in  Appendix               ’B’. That means addition of artificial  sweet-               ener  is not permitted by the  standards  laid               down  in  Appendix ’B’  and  the  prohibitions               under Rule 47 operates as an absolute prohibi-               tion  against addition of saccharin  or  other               artificial  sweetener so far as pan supari  is               concerned.  Whether  addition  of   artificial               sweetener  is injurious to health or  life  is               not a matter for consideration when its  addi-               tion is prohibited".     Following the decision of the Supreme Court in  Tejani’s case the Court set aside the acquittal of accused No. 1  and sentenced him.     A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in  Krishna Chandra  (in  Jail,) v. State of Uttar Pradesh,  (1990)  (I) F.A.C.  35 differed with the earlier decision of the  Single Bench in Ibrahim Hussain v. ,State of Uttar Pradesh and also differed with the view of the Bombay High Court in  Ranjitb- hai  Babubhai Suratwallas case and declined  to  distinguish the  Tejani’s case as held by this court and took  the  view that the prescription of the standard of saccharin is not at all relevant to the inquiry and saccharin could not be added to  any  article of food unless permitted by  standard  pre- scribed  in Appendix ’B’ to the Rules and purported  to  the decision of this Court in Tejani’s case.     Before us also Mr. B.R.L. lyengar, who appeared for  the accused,  made submission that on the construction  of  Rule 44(g)  it  permits sale of article of  food  which  contains artificial  sweetener  with  the standard as  laid  down  in Appendix  ’B’ to Rules. We are unable to accept the  submis- sion. We are also unable to accept the decisions of the High Courts supporting that view.     Rule  44 (g) indicates that sale of any article of  food which  contains artificial sweetener is banned. The  ban  is lifted only if such artificial sweetener is permitted to  be added  to the article of food for which standards have  been laid down in Appendix ’B’ to the Rules. Admittedly no stand- ard has been laid down for Pan Masala or Supari. It is  this article  of food which was being sold. No standard was  pre- scribed  for this article of food. Therefore, the  exception permitted by clause (g) has no application 399 and  no relevance. The article which was being  sold  should contain a standard and the standard should permit artificial sweetener to be added. Again Rule 47 in other form  specifi- cally  bars  saccharin or any other  article  of  artificial sweetener  to be added in any article of food, except  where the  addition of such artificial sweetener is  permitted  in accordance  with  the standards laid down in  Appendix  ’B’. Therefore both Rules 44(g) and 47 constitute a total blanket ban  on the addition of any artificial  sweetener  including saccharin  to any article of food unless standards for  that article  of food is prescribed which authorises the  use  of such  an artificial sweetener. The argument that  since  the standards of saccharin have been provided for in the  Appen- dix  ’B’  to the Rules and therefore, it could be  added  in view  of the language of Rule 44(g) is fallacious. What  one has  to see is the article of food in which  the  artificial sweetener  is sought to be added. If the standards for  that article of food is provided in Appendix ’B’ to the Rules and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

such standards permit the addition of saccharin or any other artificial  sweetener, then and then only saccharin  or  any other artificial sweetener could be added and not  otherwise not.     It appears that the Bombay High Court and the other High Courts  which  have  taken the opposite view  seem  to  have fallen into errors while interpreting Rule 44(g1. They  have assumed as if once the standards of saccharin or the artifi- cial sweetener have been prescribed it could be freely added to  any article of food. It is necessary to point  out  that the prescription of standard of saccharin or any  artificial sweetener  in  Appendix ’B’ is really irrelevant.  What  was emphasised in Tejani’s case is the standard of food and  the standard should permit saccharin or any artificial sweetener to  be added. It is not the question of standard being  pre- scribed for saccharin which is relevant; what is relevant is the standard being prescribed in Appendix ’B’ of the article of food which is being sold and which standard permits  user of saccharin. This is the real intention of the  legislature while  enacting Rule 44(g) of the Rules. For Supari and  Pan Masala,  it  is undisputed that there is  no  standard  pre- scribed. In  this view of the matter, we agree with the decisions  of the  Kerala  High court in Food Inspector  v.  Usman  (1985) K.L.T.  1038; Allahabad High Court in Krishna  Chandra,  (in Jail)  v.  State of Uttar Pardesh, 1990 (I)  F.A.C.  35  and Madras  High  Court in State by Public  Prosecutor  v.  K.R. Balakrishnan, 1986 (1) F.A.C. 384.     The  decisions  in: State of Maharashtra  v.  Ranjitbhai Suratwalla,  179  FAJ 231 (Bombay) the  Bombay  High  Court; Thummalapudi  Venkata Gopala Rao v. The State.  (1986)  Crl. L.J.  1699 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court; M/s. Wahab  and Co.,  a  Proprietory concern represented by  its  proprietor M.,A. Wahab son of N. Mohammed Sheriff v. Food Inspec- 400 tor,  Tiruchirapalli Municipal Corporation,  Trichy,  (1990) L.W.  (Crl.)  437 of the Madras High Court; Kailash  v.  The State  of  Rajasthan, 1985 (I) F.A.C. 282 of  the  Rajasthan High  Court; The State of Assam  v. Ram Karani  and  Others, 1987  (3) All India Prevention of Food Adulteration  Journal 153 of the Gauhati High Court and Ujjain Municipal  Corpora- tion, Ujjain v. Chetan Das, 1985 (I) F.A.C. 46 of the Madhya Pradesh  High  Court cannot be said to have  been  correctly decided and are hereby overruled.     The result is that civil Appeal Nos. 3708-13 of 1989 are accepted  and  the impugned judgment of the  Andhra  Pradesh High  Court dated 16th June, 1986 is set aside  Crl.  Appeal Nos. 553/89, 283/91,284/91, Civil Appeal No. 1897/91 and the appeal  arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2647/ 91  are  dis- missed.            - T.N.A.                                         Appeals  dis- posed of.                                 1 401