O. P. MEHROTRA, J. A learned Single Judge of this Court has referred this case to a Division Bench a- he found that two contradictory views had been taken by two Single Judges of this Court in the cases of Kailash Kumar Shukla v. State, 1982 ACR page 114 and Ibrahim Hussain and others State of U. P. , 1982 Excise and Food Adulteration Reports 425. 2. A sample of Pan Masala was taken by the Food Inspector from the applicant and was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The report of the Public analyst shows that the Pan Masala was sweetened with saccharin. Having been found guilty of the offence under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the courts below, he came up to this Court in revision. 3. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that Pan Masala could not be said to be adulterated as the report of the Public Analyst did not show that saccharin, with which it was sweetened, did not conform to the standard prescribed in Rule 44 (g) read with Para A07. 10 of Appendix-B. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Ibrahim Hussain and others v. State of U. P. , 1982 Excise and Food Adulteration Reports 425, which was also a case of Pan Masala which was found etc. contain Saccharain. It was held that addition of saccharin in Pal Masala will not be an offence unless it was proved that such addition did not conform to the standard laid down in Para A07. 10 of Appendix B. It was observed that in each case of addition of sachcharin, prosecution is required to give evidence whether it conforms with the standard laid down in Para A07. 10. 4. A contrary view had, however, been taken by another Single Judge of this Court in the case of Kailash Kumar Shukla v. State, 1982 ACR 114, in which a reference was made to Rule 44 (g) and Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and it was held : "reading both the rules together the inference is inevitable that sac charin cannot now be added in any article of food except as permitted under Appendix B. For example, it may be mentioned in the case of non-alcoholic bewerages viz. serial No. A 01 of Appendix-B, the use of saccharin not exceeding 10 p. m. is per mitted. This illustration I have merely cited to show that Appendix-B contains items in which admixture of saccharin is permitted, but for the rest where the addition has not been specifi cally mentioned, Rule 44 provides an absolute bar to the admixture of this artificial sweetener to other items of food. " 5. On account of the fact that contrary views had been taken in the above Single Judge decisions, this reference has been made to the Division Bench. 6. We may mention at the out-set that after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel and having carefully considered the various decisions cited before us, we find overselves in respectful agreement with the view taken by Honble Bakshi, J. in Kailashs Kama Shukles case (supra) and we are of the opinion that the view taken in Ibrahim Hussains case does not lay down the correct law. 7. We may first lefer to the relevant rules. Rule 44 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 prohibits sale of certain admixtures. Rule 44 (g), which is relevant here, provides :- 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 artificial sweetener is permitted in accordance with the standard laid down in Appendix-B. " Rule 47, which also deals with addition of saccharin or other artificial sweete ners, provides :- "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 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 form given below :- This. . . . . . . . . . . . (name of food) contains an admixture of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (name of the artificial sweetener.) 8. . . . . . . . . . . . (name of food) contains an admixture of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (name of the artificial sweetener.) 8. We may now turn to Appendix-B of the Rules which contains definitions of various articles of food and also specifies the standard of quailty prescribed therefor. Para A. 01 deals with Non-Alcoholic Bewerages. Para A-01. 01 dealing with Carbonated Water runs as under :- "a 01. 01-Carbonated Water means potable water impregnated with carbon dioxide under pressure and may contain any of the following singly or in combination : Sugar, liquid glucose, dextrose monohydrate invert sugar, fructose, honey, saccharin not exceeding 100 P. M. fruits and vegetables extractives and permitted flavouring, colouring matter, preservatives, emulsifying and stablizing agents, citric acid, fumaric acid and sorbitol tartaric acid, phosphoric acid, lactic acid, ascorbic acid, malic acid, edible gums such as sugar, karaya, arabic, carobeen, furcellaran tra- gacanth, gum ghatti, edible glatin albumin, licorice and its derivatives, salts of sodium, calcium and magnesium, vitamins, caffeine not exceeding 200 parts per million and quinine salts not exceeding 100 parts per million (expressed as quinine sulphate) : Provided that in the case of sweetened car bora ted waters other than tonic water and dry gingerale the percentage of (total sugars expressed as sucrose) shall not be less than five. " 9. Para A-07 deals with sweetening Agents such Cane, Sugar, Honey, Gur, Calie Sugar, Dextrose etc. Para A-07. 16,to which reference has been made by the learned counsel for the revisionist, provides : "a-07. 10 Saccharin Sodium commonly known as soluble Saccharin having an empirical formula as-C, H4 NNad3 S 2h 20 and molecular weight as 241. 2 shall be the material which is soluble at 20c in 1. 5 parts of water and 50 parts of alcohol (95 per cent) : and shall contain not less than 89. 0 per cent and not more than the equivalent of 140. 5 per cent of C, H4 O3 NSNa calculated with reference to the substance dried to constant weight at 105c, assay being carried out as presented in Indian Pharmacopoeia. It shall not contain more than 2 p. p. m. of arsenic and 10 p. p. m. of lead. 0 per cent and not more than the equivalent of 140. 5 per cent of C, H4 O3 NSNa calculated with reference to the substance dried to constant weight at 105c, assay being carried out as presented in Indian Pharmacopoeia. It shall not contain more than 2 p. p. m. of arsenic and 10 p. p. m. of lead. The melting point of saccharin isolated from the material as per Indian Pharmacopoeia method, shall as between 226c and 230c. The loss on drying of the material at 106 C shall not be less than 12. 0 per cent and not more than 16. 0 per cent of its weight. The material shall satisfy the test of identification and shall conform to the limit tests for free acid or alkali, ammonium, compounds and parasulpha moylbenzoate as mentioned in the Indian Pharmacopoeia. " 10. Now, it is not disputed that saccharin is an artificial sweetener and that the sample taken from the possession of the accused was found to contain saccharin. However, there was nothing in the report of the Public Analyst as to how much saccharin was found in the sample. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist was that Para A 07. 10 of Appendix 8 laid down the standard for saccharin and the sample in question could not be said to be adulterated unless it was found that it contained saccharin in excess of the standard laid down in Para A-07. 10 of Appendix-B. 11. On the at her hand, the learned counsel on behalf of the State contended that Para A-07. 10 referred to saccharin Sodium and not to saccharin as such. He referred to Para A-01. 01 and pointed out that saccharin not exceeding 100 p. p. m. was permitted to be added to carbonated Water and that saccharin did not appear to have been permitted to be added up to any limit in Pan Masala and consequently the sample in question which was found to contain saccharin was rightly found to have been adulterated. 12. We are unable to agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist. In the first place we find that Para 07. 10 deals with saccharin Sodium only known as soluble saccharin and not with sac charin as such. 12. We are unable to agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist. In the first place we find that Para 07. 10 deals with saccharin Sodium only known as soluble saccharin and not with sac charin as such. A perusal of the Rules would show that at some places there is reference to saccharin, such as in Para A-01. 01 which permits addition of saccharin not exceeding 100 p. p. m. in carbonated water, while Para A-07. 10 refers to saccharin Sodium. This indicates that saccharin and saccharin Sodium are two different things. The report of the public analyst shows that the sample in question was found to contain saccharin. There is nothing in that report to indicate that the same was found to contain saccharin Sodium and consequently the standard laid down for saccharin Sodium in Para A-07. 10 was not at all relevant for our present purposes. 13. It is also noteworthy that Appendix-B contains definitions of various articles of food and also prescribes the standards of quality required for th^m. Para A-07. 10 lays down the standard of quality prescribed for saccharin Sodium as an article of food. It does not lay down any limit upto which saccharin Sodium or soluble Saccharin can be added to other articles of food. Hence, even if we presume that saccharin and saccharin Sodium are one and the same thing, it would not mean that addition of Saccharin is permitted upto any limit under Para A-07. 10. Para A-07. 10 merely lays down the standard of quality prescribed for that article (viz. Saccharin Sodium), but it does not permit addition of saccharin Sodium (or for that matter saccha rin) to any article of food upto any limit. 14. We may illustrate by an example. Para A-07. 01 defines cane Sugar and specifies the quality of standard prescribed therefor. But cane sugar can be lawfully added to various articles of food, as there is no restriction over its addition. In fact sugar is actually added to a large number of food articles and no objection is raised regarding its addition. Para A-07. 01 defines cane Sugar and specifies the quality of standard prescribed therefor. But cane sugar can be lawfully added to various articles of food, as there is no restriction over its addition. In fact sugar is actually added to a large number of food articles and no objection is raised regarding its addition. However, Rule 44 (g) specifically prohibits the sale of any article of food which contains any artificial sweetener such as Saccharin, except where such artificial sweteensr is permitted in accordance with the standard laid down in Appendix B. This is further clarified by Rule 47 which provides that Saccharin or any 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 standard laid down in Appendix B. 15. Now, we may consider whether addition of Saccharin is permitted in accordance with the standard laid down in Appendix-B to the article of food in question viz. Pan Masala. We find that Para A-07. 10 does not permit addition of Saccharin Sodium (or for that matter saccharin) to Pan Masala or to any article of food. As a matter of fact, as already mentioned above. Para A-07. 10 was not relevant for our present purposes because it simply defines saccharin Sodium commonly known as soluble Saccharin and specifies the standard of quality prescribed for it and it does not prescribe the limits within which this artificial sweetener can be added to the different articles of food. In order to see how far, or to what extent, addition of Saccharin is permitted, we shall have to look to other paragraphs of Appendix-B dealing with articles which are sweetened with various sweetening agents and not to paragraphs dealing with sweetening agents themselves. As we have already seen, Rule 44 (g) and 47 contain clear and definite prohibition regarding addition of Sac charin or other artificial sweetener, except where the addition of such artificial sweeteners is permitted in accordance with the standard laid down in Appendix B. An example of such an exception is contained in Para A-01. As we have already seen, Rule 44 (g) and 47 contain clear and definite prohibition regarding addition of Sac charin or other artificial sweetener, except where the addition of such artificial sweeteners is permitted in accordance with the standard laid down in Appendix B. An example of such an exception is contained in Para A-01. 01 dealing with carbonated Water which permits addition of Saccharin not exceeding 100 p. p. m. This would mean that a sample of carbonated Water such as Vinto, Limca, Campa Cola will not be said to be adulterated if it contains Saccharin not exceeding 100 p. p. rn. but the same will be held to be adulterated if it contains Saccharin exceeding 100 p. p. m. 16. The present case relates to pan Masala. We do not find anything in Appendix-B which permits addition of Saccharin to any extent in Pan Masala. Consequently, the sample in question which contained an artificial sweetener viz. saccharin must be held to be adulterated, despite the fact that the Public Analyst had not reported as to how much Saccharin it contained. The question is whether saccharin was permitted to be added to pan Masala and, if so, to what extent. The answer, evidently, is no, because we do not find any paragraph of Appendix-B which permits addition of Saccharin to any extent to Pan Masala. 17. The prosecution case against the applicant was not that the sample of Pan Masala was adulterated because it contained saccharin which did not conform to the standard prescribed in Appendix-B. On the other hand, the prosecution alleges that the Pan Masala in question was adulterated because it contained an artificial sweetener viz. Saccharin, the addition whereof to Pan Masala was not permitted at all. It is not said that the Saccharin found added to the sample in question was adulterated. That Saccharin may be perfectly pure and genuine. Yet the Pan Masala in question has to be held adulterated because it contained an artificial sweetener viz. Saccharin, the addition whereof to Pan Masala was not permitted to any extent. Para A-01. 01 permits addition ofsaccharin not exceeding 100 p. p. m. to Carbonated Water, but addition of succharin to Pan Masala, Supari etc. is not permitted to any extent. Saccharin, the addition whereof to Pan Masala was not permitted to any extent. Para A-01. 01 permits addition ofsaccharin not exceeding 100 p. p. m. to Carbonated Water, but addition of succharin to Pan Masala, Supari etc. is not permitted to any extent. It would appear that Appendix-B contains items in which admixture of Saccharin is permitted, but for the rest where the addition has not been specifically mentioned. Rules 44 (g) and 47 provide an absolute bar to the admixture of this artificial sweetener to other articles of food. Pan Masala falls in this category, because addition of saccharin to it has not been specifically mentioned any where in Appendix-B. Thus, the law contains an absolute bar to the admixture of Saccharin to Pan Masala. 18. We find that there is five Judges decision of the Honble Supreme Court on this point in Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange and others reported in AIR 1974 SC 228 , which unfortunately does not appear to have been cited before the two Single Judges, who gave contradictory judgments mentioned in the order of reference. That was a case in which a sample of Supari was held to be adulterated as the same was found to contain Saccharin. After referring to Rules (44) (g) and 47 and item A-01. 01 of Appendix-B, the Supreme Court held that addition of Saccharin was permitted in the case of carbonated water but no such benefit was enjoyed by Supari. The plea that there was discrimination against Supari vis-a-vis carbonated water was repelled on the ground that there was a reasonable basis for the distinction. Their Lordships further observed :- "such being the facts, it is not the judicial function to enter the thicket of research controversy or scientific dispute where Parliament has entrusted the Central. Government with the power and therefore the duty of protecting public health against potential hazards and the Central Government after consultation with a high powered technical body, has prohibited the use of Saccharin and cyclamates. The fact that for a long time these substances were allowed is no argument against the reasonableness of their later ban ; for human knowledge advances and what was regarded as innocuous once is later dis covered to be deleterious. The fact that for a long time these substances were allowed is no argument against the reasonableness of their later ban ; for human knowledge advances and what was regarded as innocuous once is later dis covered to be deleterious. In no view can the discretion of the Government exercised after listening to the technical counselling of the Central Committee, be castigated as arbitrary and capricious or as unreasonable. " 19. Pan Masala and supari stand on similar footing. As in the case of supari, addition of Saccharin to Pan Masala was not permitted anywhere in Appendix-B. The controversy at hand is, thus, settled by the above decision of the Supreme Court. 20. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to a Single Judge decision of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Shri Ranjit Bhai Babubhai Suratwalla, 1982 Excise and Food Adulteration Reports 395, in which it was held that Saccharin was a permissible artificial sweetener provided it conformed to the standard mentioned in Cl. A 07. 10 of Appendix-B. That was also a case of supari which contained Saccharin. It was held that it will not attract punishment under Sections 7 and 16 (i) unless addition of Saccharin was found in excess of the standard laid down in clause A-07. JO. The above mentioned decision of the Supreme Court in Pyarali K. Tejanis case was cited before him but the learned Single Judge did not follow the same on the ground :- "clause A-07. 10 in Appendix-B had been inserted by Notification No. GSR 938, dated 26-5-1971. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, therefore, could not have considered Cl. A 07. 10 of Appendix-B for the reason that it had not been placed on the Statute Book at the time when the judgment was delivered. That authority, therefore, can have no relevance to the point involved in the instant case. " 21. In our opinion the learned Single Judge of the Maharashtra High Court could not have refused to follow the abovementicned decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Pyarali K. Tejanis case. The Supreme Court decision was given on 30-10-1973, more than two years after Para A-07. 10 had been inserted by Notification dated 26-5-1971. Consequently, it could not be said that their Lordships of the Supreme Court could not have considered Para A-07. The Supreme Court decision was given on 30-10-1973, more than two years after Para A-07. 10 had been inserted by Notification dated 26-5-1971. Consequently, it could not be said that their Lordships of the Supreme Court could not have considered Para A-07. 10 of Appendix-B nor it can be presumed that the same had not been placed on the Statute Book till the time when the judgment was delivered. It is correct that the judgment of the Supreme Court does not contain any reference to Para A-07. 10. The reason appears to be, as we have already mentioned above, that Para A-07. 10 was not at all relevant here, because it merely lays down the standard of quality prescribed for Saccharin Sodium, but it does not permit addition of saccharin Sodium or for that matter even saccharin, to any article of Food upto any limit. Consequently, we are unable to agree with the view expressed by the Maharashtra High Court in Ranjit Bhais case (supra ). The law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Pyarali K. Tejanfs case (supra) is the final word on the point at issue and we are bound to follow the laid down in that case. 22. For the reasons given above, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken by Bakshi, J. in Kailash Kumar Shuklas case (supra) which is in consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Pyarali K. Tejanfs case. The contrary view taken by anotsier Single Judge of this Court in Ibrahim Hussains case (supra) does not lay down the correct law and the same is in direct contradiction with the above decision of the Honble Supreme Court Let the record be laid before the learned Single Judge, who made the reference, with the above opinion. Order accordingly. .