UNION OF INDIA Vs. D.K. JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - The short point involved in this revision petition which is directed against order dated 24th Jan., 1977 of a Metropolitan Magistrate discharging the respondent of an offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is whether there was infraction of Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, in that the quantity of sample besan supplied to the Public Analyst was short and did not conform to that prescribed in the aforesaid Rule.

(2.) On 30th July, 1973, Food Inspector, G.S. Jauhri of Director General of Health Services, Govt, of India visited the premises of M/s. Rajdhani Flour Mills of 6549, Qutab Road and lifted a sample of besan from the respondent D.K. Jain who held out that he was a partner in the said firm. He purchased Union of India D.K. Jain 600 gms. of besan and divided the same into three equal parts of 200 gms. each. One counter part of the sample duly 8ealed was sent to the Public Analyst who reported the same to be adulterated. So, prosecution was launched against the respondent and some other persons who were said to be partners in the aforesaid firm along with respondent. However, they were discharged and only the respondent was left to face the charge. On 9th June, 1976, an application was moved by the prosecution to implead the firm M/s. Rajdhani Flour Mills as being liable for the said offence along with the respondent. However, the learned Magistrate held that on account of the quantity of besan sent to the Public Analyst being short of the required quantity as per Rule 22 there was not only infraction of the said Rule but there was also miscarriage of justice. This finding of his was based on judgment of this Court in Ram Kumar Vs. State Criminal Revision No. 495 of 1971, decided on 12th Oct., 1976 reported in 1976 (II) FAC 195. In Rajaldas G. Pamnani Vs. State, 1975 (I) FAC 1 , it was ruled that "non-compliance with the quantity to be supplied caused not only infraction of the provisions but also injustice. The quantities mentioned are required for correct analysis. Shortage in quantity for analysis is not permitted by the statute."

(3.) The dictum laid down in Pamnani's case has since been considered by a larger bench of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala Vs. Allassari Mohd. etc. 1978 (I) FAC 145 and some other appeals including Hans Raj's case. Overruling the principle enunciated in Pamnani's case their Lordships have observed that "the whole purpose and the context of the provision has to be kept in view for deciding the issue. The whole object of S. 11 and R. 22 is to find out by a correct analysis, subject to further verifications and tests by the Director of the Central Laboratory or otherwise, as to whether the sample of food is adulterated or not. If the quantity sent to the Public Analyst, even though it is less than that prescribed is sufficient and enables the Public Analyst to make a correct analysis, then merely because the quantity sent was not in strict compliance with the Rule will not result in the nullification of the report and obliterate its evidentiary value. If the quantity sent is less, it is for the Public Analyst to see whether it is sufficient, for his analysis or not. If he finds it insufficient there is an end of the matter. If, however, he finds, it sufficient, but due to one reason or the other, either because of further tests or otherwise, it is shown that the report of the Public Analyst based upon the short quantity sent to him is not trustworthy or beyond doubt, the case may fail."