SIS RAM Vs. STATE AND M.C.D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted of an offence under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500.00, in default of paying the fine ire was sentenced to undergo a further period of rigorous imprisonment for 120 days. The offence in question was selling Laddoos prepared with Vanaspati. which were found on analysis to contain metanil yellow, a prohibited coal tar dye.

(2.) The petitioner appealed, but his conviction was upheld by Shri P.L. Singla, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, a per judgment dated 16th June, 1975. Now he has moved this Court in revision. The main contention of the petitioner is that the sample tested by the Public Analyst was not the same as was lifted by the Food Inspector. This contention was based on the fact that the sample of Laddoos taken by the Food inspector and sent to the Public Analyst was described in the relevant document's as Laddoos made of Besan, whereas the jar produced by the Food Inspector which was opened in the Court of the Magistrate contained Boondi Laddoo s It has been submitted for the petitioner that there is a big difference between Boondi Laddoos and Besan Laddoos. On the other hand, the case of the prosecution has been that Boondi Laddoos are also made out of Besan but in a different way. On considering the two points, I am of the view that, although there is a difference between Boondi Laddoos and Besan Laddoos, the Food Inspector may have made a mistake in noting down the nature of the Laddoos, because essentially even Boondi Laddoos are made out of Besan, though they may be made out of other things also. Laddoos are a well-known preparation and may be of a different types They may be made out of Besan and Mung Dal or even of other substances. Possibly, it is difficult for a Food In sector to make out the exact ingredients used and he may have asked from seller what the substance used was and at that time he may have been told that was Besan. As the essential ingredient of Besan Laddoos is made out in the present case, admittedly the jar produced by the Food Inspector contained Boondi Laddoos which were made of Besan, I think very little difference is caused by this defect.

(3.) Another question which has arisen in this case is the fact that when the Public Analyst appeared in the witness box as Court witness, his statement was that the sample had been analysed by another chemist whose name he could not recall and also the Chromatograph record had since been destroyed. As the conviction in the present case could only be based on the Chemical Analyst's report, the only course open to the recused to challenge the conclusions in the report was to cross-examine the chemist as well as his result. In as much as this opportunity has been lost, I have a consider what effect should be given to this circumstance in this case.