Judgment 1. The above revision is directed against the order dated 16.6.1994 in C.C.No.20 of 1994, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengodu, wherein, the petitioner was charged for the offences punishable under Secs.7(l) and 16(l)(aXi) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, read with Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 2. The petitioner was facing a trial for the offences punishable under Secs.7(l) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, read with Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, in connection with an occurrence said to have taken place on 25.6.1992 at about 10 a.m., when the Food Inspector, Tiruchengodu, found that the rose milk sold by the respondent herein was not up to the standard of quality as prescribed under Appendix ‘B’ of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Hence, he was charged for the offences punishable under Secs.7(l) and 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, read with Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 3. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengodu, by his order dated 16.6.1994 in C.C.No.20 of 1994, discharged the respondent on the ground that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, did not prescribe any standard for rose milk. Hence, the above revision. 4. Mr.C.M.Gunasekaran, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the revision petitioner, invited my attention to Secs.7(i) and 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, read with the relevant Appendix B, namely, A11.01.11, which read as follows: Sec.7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act: “Prohibition of manufacture, sale etc. of certain articles of food:No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute- (i) any adulterated food; (ii)….. (iii)…. (iv)…. (v)…. of certain articles of food:No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute- (i) any adulterated food; (ii)….. (iii)…. (iv)…. (v)…. (vi)…… Explanation: For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to store any adulterated food or misbranded food or any article of food referred to in clause (iii) or clause (iv) or clause (v) if he stores such food for the manufacture therefrom of any article of food for sale.” Sec. 16 (1) (a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act: “Penalties:(1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-sec.(l-A), if any person- (a) whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, imports into India or manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distributes any article of food- (i) which is adulterated within the meaning of sub-clause (m) of clause (ia) of Sec.2 or misbranded within the meaning of clause (ia) of that section or the sale of which is prohibited under any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder or by an order of the Food (Health) Authority; (ii)….. (b)….. (c)….. (d)…. (e)….. (f)…… (g)….. (b)….. (c)….. (d)…. (e)….. (f)…… (g)….. he shall, in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of Sec.6, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years, and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees; Provided that- (i) if the offence is under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) and is with respect to an article of food, being primary food, which is adulterated due to human agency or is with respect to an article of food which is misbranded within the meaning of sub-clause (k) of clause (ix) of Sec.2; or (ii) if the offence is under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a), but not being an offence with respect to the contravention of any rule made under clause (a) or clause (g) of Sub-sec.(l-A) of Sec.23 or under clause (b) of Sub-sec.(2)of Sec.24, the court may for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to two years, and with fine which shall not be less than five hundred rupees: Provided further that if the offence is under sub-Clause (ii) of clause (a) and is with respect to the contravention of any rule made under clause (a) or clause (g) of Sub-sec.(l-A) of Sec.23 or under clause (b) of Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.24, the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months and with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees.” Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955: “Standards of quality of the various articles of food specified in Appendix B to these rules are defined in that appendix.” Notes: Schedule is valid even if it mention technical expressions which are not familiar to ordinary retail vendor A. P. Grain Merchants v. Union of India A. P. Grain Merchants v. Union of India, (1970)2 S.C.C. 71 : 1970 S.C.C. (Crl.) 307. Courts cannot alter or vary the standard fixed in Appendix B. Any articles or food which does not conform to the standards specified in Appendix B will be said to be adulterated because the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities which are in excess of the prescribed limits. Jagdish Prasad v. State of W.B. Jagdish Prasad v. State of W.B., (1972)1 S.C.C. 326 : 1972 S.C.C. (Crl.)63: A.I.R. 1972S.C. 2044: 1972 Crl. L.J.1309. Even when there is marginal deviation from the prescribed standard the article of food is adulterated. Mohan Datt v. State of H.P. Mohan Datt v. State of H.P., (1986)3 F.A.C. 203, State of Haryana APPENDIX B Definitions and standards of quality: “A.01. BEVERAGES-NON-ALCOHOLIC: 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. p.m., fruits and vegetables extractives and permitted flavouring, colouring matter, preservatives, emulsifying and stabilizing agents, citric acid, fumaric acid and sorbitol, tartaric acid, phosphoric acid, lactic acid, ascorbic acid, malic acid, edible gums such as guar, karaya, arabic, carobean, furcellaran, tragacanth, gum ghatti, edible gelatin, albumin, licorice and its derivatives, salts of sodium, calcium and magnesium, vitamins, caffeline not exceeding 200 parts per million Estergum (Glycerol ester of wood rosin) not exceeding 100 parts per million, and quinine salts not exceeding 100 parts per million (expressed as quinine sulphate): Provided that in the case of sweetened carbonated waters other than tonic water and dry gingerale the percentage of total sugars expressed as sucrose shall not be less than five. It shall conform to the following requirements, namely: (1) total plate count per ml not more than … 50 (2) Coliform count in 100 ml… 0 (3) Yeast and mould count per ml not more than.. 2 Provided further estergum used in carbonated water shall have the following standards, namely: Glycerol esters of wood rosins commonly known as Estergum is hard yellow to pale amber coloured solid. It is a complex mixture of tri and diglycerol esters of rosin acids from wood rosin. It is produced by the esteri-fication of pale wood rosin with food grade glycerol. It is composed of approximately 90 per cent resin acids and 10 per cent neutrals (non-acidic compounds). It is a complex mixture of tri and diglycerol esters of rosin acids from wood rosin. It is produced by the esteri-fication of pale wood rosin with food grade glycerol. It is composed of approximately 90 per cent resin acids and 10 per cent neutrals (non-acidic compounds). The resin acid fraction is a complex mixture of isomeric diterpeniod monocarboxylic acids having the typical molecular formula C20 H30 02 chiefly abietic acid. The substance is purified by steam stripping or by counter-current steam distillation. Identification Solubility - Insoluble in water, soluble in acetone and in Benzene. Infra Red Spectrum - Obtain the infra-red spectrum of a thin film of the sample deposited on a potassium bromide plate - Scan between 600 and 4000 wave numbers. Compare with typical spectrum obtained from pure Estergum. Test for absence of Tall oil Rosin (Sulphur test) - Pass the test as given below: When sulphur-containing organic compounds are heated in the presence of sodium formate, the sulphur is converted to hydroven sulphide which can readily be detected by the use of lead acetate paper. A positive test indicates the use of Tall oil rosin instead of wood rosin. Apparatus - Test Tube: Use a standard, 10 × 75 mm, heat-resistant, glass test tube - Burner, Bunsen: A small size burner of the microflame type is preferred. Reagents - Sodium Formate Solution: Dissolve 20 g of reagent grade sodium formate, Na OOCH, in 100 ml of distilled water, head Acetate Test Paper: Commercially available from most chemical supply houses. Procedure - Weigh 40-50 mg of sample into a test tube and 1-2 drops of sodium formate solution. Place a strip of lead acetatest paper over the mouth of the test tube. Heat the tube in the burner flame until fumes are formed that contact the test paper. Continue heating for 2-5 minutes. There must be no formation of a black spot of lead sulphide indicating the presence of sulphur containing compounds. Detection limit: 50 mg/kg sulphur. Drop softening point - Between 88 degree C and 96 decree C. Arsenic - Not more than 3 ppm Lead - Not more than 10 ppm Heavy metals (as lead) - Not more than 40 ppm Acid value - Between 3 and 9 Hydroxyl number - Between 15 and 45.” A.11.1.11: “Skimmed Milk means the product prepared from milk from which almost all the milk fat has been removed mechanically. Standards for different classes and designations of milk shall be as follows: 5. A reading of the above would make it clear that for the milk sold without any indication of quality, the standard prescribed for the buffalo milk shall apply. 6. Therefore, it is not in dispute that in the said Appendix B to A 11.1.11 the standard for buffalo milk is prescribed. Hence, in the instant case, since the milk was sold without any indication of quality, the standard prescribed for the buffalo milk would apply, in which event, the reason for order of discharge dated 16.6.1994 in C.C.No.20 of 1994 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengodu, is not sustainable in law. Hence, the same is hereby set aside. However, taking into consideration, the fact that the respondent was charged with regard to an alleged occurrence said to have taken place on 25.6.1992, I do not think, that it is justifiable to remit the matter for re-trial and therefore, while setting aside the order dated 16.6.1994 in C.C.No.20 of 1994, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengodu, I allow the above revision and make it clear that no further trial is required in the matter. The revision is ordered accordingly. No costs.