STATE OF KERALA Vs. MAMMU MUSALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two appeals against acquittal are by the State; and the revision against conviction and sentence as by the accused. They were heard together, and are being disposed of by this common judgement, for, in all the three cases the prosecutions were for infringement of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act 37 of 1954) hereinafter referred to as the Act, and they involve the consideration of the common question relating to the particulars to be mentioned in the report submitted by the Public Analyst under Section 13 of the Act, high -lighted before us. Points peculiar to Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 1972 and Cri. Appeal No. 149 of 1973 urged before us will be considered towards the end of the judgement after dealing with the main (common) question relating to the Analyst's report.

(2.) LET us now turn to the brief facts relevant for our purpose in each case : Crl. A. No. 58 of 1972 : This appeal is against the acquittal of the accused in C. C. No. 42 of 1970 on the file of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate's Court, Hosdrug. The case arose on a complaint filed by PW. 1 the Food Inspector, Cheruvathur Panchayat alleging that the accused had stocked adulterated 'toor dhall' for sale to the public for human consumption at his grocery shop at Payyangiyil within the jurisdiction of Cheruvathur Panchayat, and had also sold a portion thereof to him for the purpose of analysis. The material portion of Ext. P -3, report by the Public Analyst, reads as follows :

(3.) THE report in Form III consists of two parts, that of the "result declared" by the analyst on the one hand, and the "opinion expressed" by him on the other. Though Sub -Section (1) of Section 13, in terms, contemplates only the declaration of the result of analysis by the Public Analyst, provision for him to state his opinion also has been incorporated in the form prescribed under Rule 7 obviously with the object of assisting the court with the unbiased opinion of an expert. The court may infer its own conclusion from the data available in the result declared, and to the extent it is found to be in conflict with the "opinion" of the analyst the former would prevail over the latter. The court, however, has to accept the data furnished in the report to be correct until the contrary is proved or established. The "opinion" expressed cannot be equated to "result declared". There may, however, be cases where they substantially coincide, for instance in all the three cases on hand, while declaring the result, the name of the particular non -permitted coaltar dye found present was stated; in expressing his opinion the analyst stated "am of the opinion that the said sample contained non -permitted coal -tar dyes, and is therefore adulterated" or expressions to that effect.