Judgment :- 1. Petitioner is a manufacturer of various varieties of suparies from betel nuts. They are having the trade mark ASOKA. It is alleged that all varieties of Asoka suparies except one recently introduced by the company do not contain saccharine. One variety contains saccharine. According to the petitioner, the limit of saccharine added is perfectly in conformity with the regulations placed by the food authorities and on each of the packets labels are pasted stating that permitted amount of saccharine alone has been added. The petitioner's case is that saccharine as such is not a prohibited item for human consumption. Standard has been prescribed for saccharine in Appendix B to the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). R.44(g) and R.47 framed under the Act read along with Appendix B to the Rules would go to show that saccharine is a permitted artificial sweetener. Therefore it is argued that it can be added to betel nuts for making suparies. While the legal position is such the petitioner states that the authorities under the Act are harassing them, their agents and retail sellers by launching prosecution under the Act on the ground that the supari is adulterated on account of the addition of saccharine. Therefore the petitioner prays for direction restraining the authorities under the Act functioning within the State of Kerala not to launch any prosecution against the petitioner on the ground that the supari is adulterated by adding saccharine to it. 2. Appendix B prescribes standards of quality for various articles of food. Item A. 07.10 in Appendix B gives the standard for saccharine. It is an artificial sweetener. Except where artificial sweetener is permitted to be added to any articles of food as per the standard laid down in Appendix B, saccharine cannot be added to any articles of food. If such permission is discernible from Appendix B in the case of supari and if saccharine is added, the said saccharine must conform to standard in A. 07.10 in Appendix B. Petitioner has no case that the law allows saccharine to be added to supari. The fact that supari is an article of food is not in dispute. No provision of the Act or Rules has been brought to my notice which allows addition of artificial sweetener to supari. The fact that supari is an article of food is not in dispute. No provision of the Act or Rules has been brought to my notice which allows addition of artificial sweetener to supari. Since artificial sweetener is not permitted to be added to supari, petitioner cannot add saccharine to it. R.47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules states that saccharine or other artificial sweetener shall not be added to any article of food except where such addition is permitted by the standards laid down in Appendix B. Even in such cases the container of the article of food should have a label giving the name of the artificial sweetener. In other words artificial sweetener cannot be added to any article of food which as per Appendix B is not to contain it. 3. The learned counsel referred to me the decision of this court in O.P. 4619/85. This court observed: "If saccharine is used in conformity with the standards permitted thereunder, no offence would be made out. Petitioner is therefore entitled to a declaration that they can use saccharine in conformity with the prescriptions of the Act in Appendix B." This observation, according to the learned counsel, allows the petitioner to use saccharine in the preparation of supari. I find, it difficult to agree with this interpretation. What this court stated, according to me, is that saccharine must be used in conformity with the standards permitted in Appendix-B. That is; if as per Appendix B artificial sweetener is permitted to be added to any article of food that alone can be got achieved. Where such permission is granted as per the standard laid in Appendix B and if saccharine is added to it, the saccharine so added should conform to the standard prescribed in A. 07.10. In other words, saccharine which satisfy the standard laid in A. 07.10. to Appendix B alone can be added to those types of articles of food. The provisions of the Act, Rules or Appendix to the Rules do not allow any one to add saccharine to any article of food if as per the standard laid in Appendix B that article of food is not to contain any artificial sweetener. to Appendix B alone can be added to those types of articles of food. The provisions of the Act, Rules or Appendix to the Rules do not allow any one to add saccharine to any article of food if as per the standard laid in Appendix B that article of food is not to contain any artificial sweetener. This court only staged that saccharine can be added in conformity with the prescriptions of the Act in Appendix B. Nothing has been brought out to show that law allows artificial sweetener to be added to supari. Therefore the above mentioned declaration will not in any way go to help the petitioner. It is further admitted before me that the said judgment is under challenge in W.A. 44/88. 4. The Food Inspector has launched prosecution against the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Palghat in S.T. 25/88 for selling adulterated "Asoka special supari". The certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Pune, Ext. A2 produced along with this petition shows that the article of food purchased from the accused therein contained 2000 mgs/kg saccharine and that the sample does not conform to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The said report prima facie goes to show that the accused in the said case sold adulterated article of food. In such a situation this court is not to quash the complaint in exercise of the powers u/s. 482 of the Code. Crl. M.C. fails. It is dismissed. Dismissed.