SUBHASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 31.5.2011 passed by learned ASJ, New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.47/2010. The petitioner herein was convicted under Section 2(ia)(a)(j) read with Section 16 and 7 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short "the Act") by the learned MM vide his judgment dated 14th December, 2007. This judgment was assailed in Criminal Appeal No.47/2010 whereby the order of the MM was maintained by the learned ASJ. The present petition is filed assailing the order of learned ASJ.

(2.) The main question that arises for consideration in the present petition is whether Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Adulteration Rules (for short "the Rules") is mandatory or only directory and whether as per Rule 29(c) of the Rules the use of permitted synthetic food colour was prohibited in case of peas kept in the open container.

(3.) A sample of green peas was taken from an open tray bearing no label declaration from the shop of the petitioner by the Food Inspector. After following the required procedure, the sample was preserved and the other two parts were deposited with the Local Health Authority (LHA) in intact condition. The Public Analyst (PA) opined the sample adulterated due to the reason, "the sample is adulterated because it was coloured with artificial colouring matter". The petitioner being the sole proprietor of the said shop was chargesheeted under Section 2 (ia)(a)(j) read with Section 16(1A) and 7 of the Act. After he was summoned in the court, he exercised his right under Section 13(2) of the Act and got the second part of the sample analysed form the Central Food Laboratory (CFL). As per report of the CFL, this sample was found to be adulterated as it contained synthetic colour which was permitted only for canned or bottled peas as per Rule 29(c) of the Rules.