SAILENDRABHAI DAMODARBHAI SHAH . v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT STATE OF GUJARAT FOOD OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOOD AND DRUGS CONTROL DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SAILENDRABHAI DAMODARBHAI SHAH & ORS. …..APPELLANT(S)

THE STATE OF GUJARAT …..RESPONDENT(S)

1. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants

and the learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. A complaint was filed by the Food Inspector alleging violation

of Rules 47(iii) and Rule 42(zzz) of the Prevention of Food

Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short ‘the said Rules’). The Rules

have been framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,

1954 (for short ‘the said Act’). Though the complaint does not say

so, for the time being, as contended by the learned counsel

appearing for the State, we are proceeding on the footing that the

complaint alleges the violation of Rules 47(3) and 42(zzz)(12) of

the said Rules.

3. We may note here that Rule 47 deals with the restrictions on

use and sale of artificial sweeteners. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 47 lays

down the general rule that no artificial sweetener should be added

to any article or food. The proviso to sub-Rule (1) creates an

exception. In this case, the basic allegation is of the violation

of sub-Rule (3) of Rule 47 of the said Rules, which reads thus: -

“(3) No person shall sell table top sweetener except under label declaration as provided in sub-cluses (1)and (2) of s...