Judgment :- This revision petition is directed against the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Sec.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The crux of the allegation against the petitioner is that he sold pineapple cool drinks to the Food Inspector – P.W.1. On analysis that was found not to conform to the standards prescribed for fruit drinks in Appendix B – Item A.16.05 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short ‘the Rules). The prosecution alleged that the article must be held to be adulterated under Sec.2(ia)(m) of the Act. 3. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and proved Exts.P1 to P17. No defence evidence – oral or documentary, was adduced by the defence. 4. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioner. Accordingly, the courts proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence. 5. Arguments have been advanced before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned concurrent judgments on one short ground. The counsel contends that no standard has been prescribed for “ready to serve synthetic soft drink” under the Act and, in these circumstances, the petitioner who had only sold a synthetic ready to serve soft drink/beverage should not have been held guilty of sale of adulterated food. 6. It is not disputed before me that no standard is prescribed under the Act in Appendix B for ready to serve synthetic beverage and such an article of food need only satisfy that no other stipulations under the PFA Act/Rules is violated. The crux of the contention is that what is sold is not “fruit drink” for which alone standard is prescribed under Appendix B Entry A.16.15. 7. The contention was evidently not raised before the courts below and we find no discussion on this aspect in the impugned judgments. But the question is whether on the fact alleged the offence is made out and the conviction is sustainable. Therefore notwithstanding the fact that such specific plea doe not appear to have been raised before the courts below, this Court is now obliged to consider and answer this contention of law raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. But the question is whether on the fact alleged the offence is made out and the conviction is sustainable. Therefore notwithstanding the fact that such specific plea doe not appear to have been raised before the courts below, this Court is now obliged to consider and answer this contention of law raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. To the facts first. Ext.P4 mahazar clearly shows what item of food was sold by the petitioner. It is described to be “1800 ml. of pineapple cool drinks”. Against Col.No.7 of the mahazar, additional particulars are furnished. It is made crystal clear that the article sold is prepared by the vendor and sold by him. He has further specified that he had prepared the drink using “Happy pineapple soft drink concentrate, sugar and water”. This statement of the petitioner at the time when he sold the article is very clearly incorporated in Ext.P4 mahazar. 9. The crucial question is whether the article sold is “fruit drink” for which standard is prescribed in Appendix B Entry A.16.05. I extract the said standard as it stood specified on the date of the offence: “A.16.05—FRUIT BEVERAGE OR FRUIT DRINK means any beverage or drink which is purported to be prepared from fruit juice and water or carbonated water, and containing sugar, dextrose, invert sugar or liquid glucose either singly or in combination and with or without – (a) water, peel-oil, fruit essence and flavours. (b) citric acid, ascorbic acid. (c) permitted preservatives and colour. The total soluble solids w/w in the final product shall be not less than 10 per cent. The minimum percentage of fruit juice in the final product shall be not less than 5.00 per cent w/w. It may also certain permitted emulsifying and stablising agents as prescribed in rule 61C. It may also contain fumaric acid (food grade) certified by Bureau of Indian Standards to the extent of 0.3 per cent by weight.” (emphasis supplied) If this standard were to apply, without any dispute, the sample must be held to be adulterated as the total soluble solids (TSS was found to be only 7.1 per cent by weight as per Ext.P10 report of the Public Analyst. It will be apposite straight away to note that Ext.P10 significantly does not at all show the percentage of fruit juice in the final product. It will be apposite straight away to note that Ext.P10 significantly does not at all show the percentage of fruit juice in the final product. That information is not at all furnished in Ext.P10. Evidently no fruit juice was present, it is safe to assume. 10. A reading of the standard prescribed in Entry A.16.05 must convey that in order to attract the standard of “fruit drink” the sample must be any beverage or drink which is purported to be prepared from fruit juice and water or carbonated water. 11. What fruit juice is can be understood from Entry A.16.01 which I extract below: “A.16.01:-- FRUIT JUICE means the unfermented and unconcentrated liquid expressed from sound, ripe fresh fruit, and with or without – (a) sugar, dextrose, invert sugar or liquid glucose, either single or in combination. (b) water peel-oil, fruit essence and flavour, common salt, ascorbic acid, citric cid, tartaric acid and malic acid and preservatives. The acidity of the finished product calculated as citric acid shall not be less than 4 per cent in the case of pure lemon juice or pulp and not less than 5 per cent in the case of pure lime juice but shall not exceed 3.5 per cent in the case of other juices. The total soluble solids for sweetened fruit juice (except tomato juice) shall not be less than 10 per cent. It may also contain permitted emulsifying and stablising agents as prescribed in rule 61C. It may also contain Fumaric acid (food grade) or quick dissolving Fumaric acid certified by Bureau of Indian Standards to the extent of 0.3 per cent by weight.” (emphasis supplied) 12. ‘Fruit juice’ whether we go by the dictionary or we go by the Entry in A.16.01 must convey that it must be liquid extracted from fruit. If the sample does not satisfy that requirement, it cannot obviously be fruit juice under A.16.01 or in language. If the sample is not prepared or is not purported to be prepared using fruit juice, obviously it cannot be held to be a fruit drink falling within the sweep of A.16.05. 13. In the instant case, the Public Analyst’s report – Ext.P10 shows clearly that there was no fruit juice detected in the sample. If the sample is not prepared or is not purported to be prepared using fruit juice, obviously it cannot be held to be a fruit drink falling within the sweep of A.16.05. 13. In the instant case, the Public Analyst’s report – Ext.P10 shows clearly that there was no fruit juice detected in the sample. We have further convincing indication from Col.No.7 in Ext.P4 that the sample sold by the petitioner was not purported to be prepared from any “fruit juice”. It was expressly stated to be cool drinks prepared using soft drink concentrate, sugar and water. 14. The conclusion appears to be safe, in these circumstances, that the article sold was neither fruit juice nor was it purported to be made from fruit juice. If that be so, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that insistence that the sample sold must conform to the standards prescribed for fruit drink in A.16.05 is not justified. When the sample sold is not fruit drink, the standard prescribed for fruit drink cannot be applied. A successful prosecution cannot then be launched on the ground that the sample does not conform to the standard prescribed for fruit drink which it was not. 15. Existence of an article of the category “soft drink concentrate” is conceded in Rule 29(d) of the PFA Rules. No separate standards are seen prescribed for such soft drink concentrate. The learned Public Prosecutor was not able to point out to this Court that there is any standard prescribed for soft drink concentrate in Appendix B. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is none and I am not able to locate any. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that no standard is prescribed for soft drink concentrate and this aspect was adverted to in P.K. Madhu and another v. State of Kerala and another (2005 (2) KLD (CRI) 342). That “final food or beverage for consumption” can be prepared from such soft drink concentrate is also conceded evidently from Rule 30 which stipulates the maximum limit of permitted food colours which can be present in such final food or beverage for consumption prepared from such soft drink concentrate. 16. That “final food or beverage for consumption” can be prepared from such soft drink concentrate is also conceded evidently from Rule 30 which stipulates the maximum limit of permitted food colours which can be present in such final food or beverage for consumption prepared from such soft drink concentrate. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision reported in Hindustan Lever Ltd. V. Food Inspector and another (2004) 13 SCC 83) in support of the obvious contention that when standards are not prescribed for an article under Appendix B, the standards of some others cannot by implication be applied to such article. That position is certainly beyond controversy. 17. The conclusion appears to be inevitable, in these circumstances, that what the petitioner had sold to the Food Inspector is not fruit juice or fruit drink; but only “final food or beverage” prepared from “synthetic soft drink concentrate”. No standards have been prescribed for such article and the course adopted by the Public Analyst and the courts below – of applying the standard for fruit drink in Appendix B Entry A.16.05 to the article is unjustified. The Report of the Public Analyst (Ext.P10) and the averments in the complaint do not at all show that the sample sold was adulterated in any other manner or that it violated any rules. 18. The up-shot of the above discussion is that the challenge raised in this revision petition must succeed and the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. 19. In the result: (a) This revision petition is allowed. (b) The impugned verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence are set aside. (c) The petitioner is found not guilty and acquitted. The bail bond executed by the petitioner/accused shall stand discharged and he is set at liberty.