JAGDISH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel on both sides. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 7/16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 on a charge that he sold 450 grams of Dalchini for Rs. 2.25 to the Food Inspector, R. S. Kushwaha. The samples taken were sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst performed only microscopic test and opined that the sample examined by him was not cinnamon at all but contained cent per cent foreign bark.

(2.) As before the courts below, here also the contention advanced on behalf of the defence is that the article was not sold as cinnamon zeaylanicum knees but as Chini Dalchini or cassia lignea which, it is common ground between the counsel, is not cinnamon. We find basis for this contention in the telling circumstance that the appellant charged Rs. 2.25 only for 450 grams of this article from the Food Inspector; while the market price of Dalchini properly so-called, would have been more than ten times of the price charged by the appellant. The meagre price charged is a pointer to the fact that the article sold was in all possibility Chini Dalchini which is only bark of cassia lignea. Even the Food Inspector who purchased the sample, admitted that he did not know the distinction between Dalchini proper and Chini Dalchini so-called. No less a person than the Public Analyst himself, admitted in the witness-stand before the High Court. "There should be considerable difference in the price between Cinnamon and cassia, perhaps, the price of cinnamon would be ranging between 50 to 100 rupees per kg. Cassia would be much cheaper, the price may be 5 to 10 rupees per kg."

(3.) Another lethal snag in the prosecution case was that the Public Analyst did not perform the chemical test prescribed by the Rules for analysing an alleged sample of Dalchini (Cinnamomum Zeaylanicum Knees) In his testimony, S. B. Singh, Public Analyst stated that the only test performed to identify the sample, in his Laboratory was microscopic examination of the sample. He frankly conceded: