DELHI ADMINISTRATION Vs. AMAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal U/s 378 (3) Cr.P.C. by the Delhi Administration against the judgment of Learned ASJ whereby the judgment of conviction dated 26.08.2011 and order on sentence dated 08.09.2011 of the respondent U/s 7/16 of the PF Act were set aside. The respondent Amar Chand was convicted by the Learned M.M. vide judgment dated 26th August, 2011 U/s 7/16 of the PF Act and sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of which for additional imprisonment of ten days. The respondent preferred appeal against the said order of conviction and sentence before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge who vide his impugned judgment dated 19.11.2011 set aside the order of conviction and sentence and acquitted the respondent. This order of acquittal has been assailed by the State in the present leave petition.

(2.) The respondent was conducting business in foodgrains. Sample of "Dal Moth" was taken by the Food Inspector which on analysis by the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated being coloured with synthetic colouring tartrazine. The Public Analyst gave his report in this regard as Ex. PW 1/F. Before the Learned M.M., the prosecution had examined three witnesses including the Food Inspector. In the appeal before the Ld. ASJ the challenge to the order of conviction was mainly on the ground that the use of synthetic colouring tartrazine was not prohibited under Rule 28 and 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. It was also the plea of the respondent convict that the report of the Public Analyst had been given after much delay of analysis of sample and so had lost its evidentiary value.

(3.) The present leave petition has been filed by the State alleging that "Dal Moth" falls within the category of foodgrains under Article A.18.06 and A.18.06.14 of Appendix B of the PFA Rules in which the addition of colour was not allowed and so the sample article was not covered in the list given in Rule 29. It is alleged that the synthetic colouring tartrazine was not permissible under the PF Rule though its quantity was not mentioned by the Public Analysis in his report.