STATE Vs. SUBHASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 20th March, 2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Appellate Court) whereby respondent has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 16(1)(1a) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.F.A. Act'). Respondent was convicted by the Trial Court under the aforesaid provisions and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 3,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In the appeal, Appellate Court has acquitted the respondent. As per the petitioner unpermitted coal tar dye viz. metanil yellow was found in the 'Boondi' sample lifted from the shop of the respondent. This was so alleged in view of the report of the Public Analyst (Ex.PW1/F). Nature of tests conducted by Public Analyst have not been mentioned in the report. During the trial counterpart sample was sent to Central Food Laboratory (CFL) at the behest of the respondent. As per the report of Director, CFL also unpermitted artificial colour identified, as melanil yellow was found in the sample. This was so concluded on the basis of paper chromatography test. By placing reliance on Raj Kumar vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh,1991 1 FAC 38 , Kartar Singh vs. State of Haryana,2000 2 FAC 243 (P and H) and Maya Ram vs. The State of Punjab,1987 11 FAC 320 (P and H), Appellate Court has that the paper chromatography test was not sufficient to conclude as to whether permitted or unpermitted coloring material had been used. I do not find any perversity or manifest error in the view taken by the Appellate Court. So far as Public Analyst's report is concerned, it has not been specified as to what kind of tests were conducted. Even otherwise this report stands superseded by the second report of the CFL. According to CFL's report only paper chromatography test was conducted. In Balmukand Singh vs. State of Punjab,2008 OilLJ 1084 it has been held 'it would not be unsafe to conclude that paper chromatography test is not sufficient to conclude whether permitted or unpermitted coal tar dye has been used. The expert has to examine carefully the colouring matter by applying various tests by excluding the use of permitted colours, before reaching the conclusion to detect the unpermitted coal'. It may be pointed out here that Section 28 of the P.F.A. Act permits use of yellow colouring by using chemicals known as 'pyrazolone' and 'azo'. Thus, it was all the more necessary for the concerned laboratory to have had conducted such necessary tests to rule out the use of permitted colouring material. For the forgoing reasons, I do not find any justifiable ground to grant leave to appeal to the petitioner.

(2.) Dismissed.