Judgment This is an appeal by the State represented by the Public Prosecutor against the order of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai acquitting the respondent in respect of an offence under Section 2(ia)(a) and Rules 44(g) and 47 read with Sections 7(1) and 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The prosecution case was that on 19th April, 1979 at about 10.00 a.m. the Food Inspector of the Madurai Corporation visited the tea shop of the respondent at South Masi Street at Madurai where he was selling tea and coffee to the public. The Food Inspector purchased a cup of tea without sugar and he took samples of the same according to Rules in the presence of the respondent and served notices on him. On analysis, it was found that the sample contained 80 parts of saccharin per million parts in contravention of Rules 47 and 48(g) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Ex.P-10 is the report of the Public Analyst. Rule 47 of the said Rules prohibits adding of saccharin to any article of food except carbonated waters. Obviously, the sample of tea is not carbonated water, and as such the addition of saccharin was prohibited. Hence the complaint. 3. The Food Inspector examined himself as P.W.1 and the person who was present at the time of the seizure of the tea was examined as P.W.2. The accused admitted the sale, but denied the offence of adulteration. He further admitted that the Food Inspector wanted tea without sugar. He also examined a defence witness on his side as D.W.1 to speak to the effect that the Accused purchases sugar, tea and milk only from outside and that he does not add any saccharin in tea. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai acquitted the accused on the ground that Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules permits the addition of sugar and the requirement with regard to the label is inapplicable where the tea was sold after preparation in a tumbler. The trial Court also held that saccharin can be added to any food if it conforms to the standard of A.07.10 of Appendix B. On this ground the accused was acquitted. The State is aggrieved with this and has come forward with this appeal. 4. The trial Court also held that saccharin can be added to any food if it conforms to the standard of A.07.10 of Appendix B. On this ground the accused was acquitted. The State is aggrieved with this and has come forward with this appeal. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the lower Court committed an error in holding that Clause A.07.10 of Appendix B permits addition of saccharin to tea decoction ignoring the Rules 47 and 44(g) which prohibit the addition of saccharin to tea decoction. There is no difficulty in accepting the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor since it is in accordance with the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules provides for prohibition of addition of saccharin to certain kinds of food and also lays down standards for each item of food with a view to ensuring the purity of the articles. Rule 44(g) states that “...no person shall either by himself or by any servant or agent sell any article of food which contains any artificial sweetener, except where such artificial sweetner is permitted in accordance with the standard laid down in Appendix B”. Appendix B only lays down the standards for various articles of food-Vide Rule No.5. A look of the various items mentioned in the Appendix B will show that there is a reference to the saccharin only in regard to beverages like carbonated waters, i.e., A.07.10 and not in any other item. Therefore, the addition of saccharin can only be in respect of carbonated waters and not in any other articles. A.07.10 prescribes only the standard and it does not say that it can be added to any other item. This principle has also been laid down in a Bombay case reported in 1981, F.A.C. 339. 5. Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules reads thus: “Saccharin or any other artificial sweetener shall not be added to any article of food, except where the addition of such artificial sweetener is permitted in accordance with the standards 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 prescribed form”. 6. 6. Therefore, Rule 47 of the said Rules imposes two conditions: (1) It should be in accordance with the standards laid down in Appendix B. (2) where an artificial sweetener is added, there should be a label in the prescribed form. There is nothing in Appendix B which permits the addition of an artificial sweetener to prepare tea. It is, therefore, clear that saccharin shall not be added to any article of food unless they are permitted under Appendix B. In other words, it is only in case of carborated water that the addition of saccharin is permitted. The trial Court has committed an error in holding that Rule 47 is inapplicable to this case. The lower Court is also not correct in holding that saccharin can be added to any food if it conforms to A.07.10 of Appendix B. 7. In construing the Rules, the lower Court has omitted to read Rule 44 and Rule 47 together in a harmonious way. Of course, there may be some ambiguity in Rule 47, but it has to be construed in such a way as to harmonise with Rule 44, and if this is done, there will be no difficulty in concluding that the use of saccharin in tea even if it conforms to the standard laid down in A.07.10 of Appendix B is prohibited. The result is, A.07.10 of Appendix B does not permit addition of saccharin 1o tea decoction and Rule 47 read with Rule 44(g) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules clearly prohibits the same. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the order of acquittal is set aside and the respondent is convicted under Section 2(1)(a) and Rules 44(g) and 47 read with Sections 7 (1) and 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 8. With reference to sentence, he appears to be running a pucca tea shop at the prestigeous South Masi Street in Madurai City and it is not like a Village tea stall where the consumers are small in number and restricted. Therefore, I am of opinion that it will be just and proper if the respondent is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment, he will undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. Time for payment of fine two months.