STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KARSANBHAI MELABHAI DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent for the offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dehgam in Criminal Case No. 1115 of 1992.

(2.) As per the complaint of the Food Inspector at exh.1, the complainant had visited the shop on 20-5-1992 and purchased sample of loose ghee on 21-4-1992 at 8.45 in the morning in village Bahiyal of Dehgam Taluka. The sample was collected in presence of a panch witness and sent for analysis. Presence of turmeric powder was found in it. As per the report of the Public Analyst, it was not as per the standard prescribed in Appendix-B to the said Act at Srl.No. A:11:02:21. The accused was, therefore, tried for the offence under Section 16(1A)(ii) of the said Act under Section 7(v) thereof. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Dehgam, however, by the aforesaid order dated 22nd September 1995 made in Summary Case No.1115 of 1992, acquitted the accused, holding that the panch witness did not support the version of the complainant, and that, according to the panch witness, the spoon which was placed in the turmeric powder in his house, was used for stirring the sample of the ghee which was taken to his house for heating so that it could be put in bottles and sealed. It was also held that turmeric powder was not injurious to health and being article of primary food, its presence in the sample of ghee, which was taken by the complainant from the respondent, did not amount to adulteration of ghee. The learned Magistrate also held that there was breach of the requirement of Rule 18, because, the memorandum and seal were not sent separately to the public analyst. It was also found that the complaint was filed two months after the analyst's report was received.

(3.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the deposition of the complainant clearly supported the prosecution version and can be relied upon for convicting the accused for the offences with which he was charged. It was argued that the complainant was fully corroborated by the report of the public analyst at exh.25. He also submitted that the finding of the learned Magistrate that turmeric powder was a primary food and not injurious to health and therefore, its addition in ghee was not adulteration of ghee, was erroneous. In support of this submission, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Badri Prasad v. State of M.P., reported in 1996 SCC (Cri.) 79, in which the Supreme Court, in context of chillies powder, held that a bare reading of Appendix `B' Item A.05.05.01 revealed that addition of a colouring or flavouring matter to chillies powder was prohibited, and therefore, that per se would make the article adulterated. He also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Prem Ballab v. The State of (Delhi Administration), reported in AIR 1977 SC 56, in which, in context of Rule 23 of the Rules under the said Act, the Supreme Court held that Rule 23 provided that the addition of a colouring matter to an article of food, except as specifically permitted by the Rules, was prohibited. In that case, the report of the public analyst showed that linseed oil sold by the appellant contained artificial dye and that was clearly prohibited by the Rules and hence, the case was clearly covered by clause (j) of Section 2(i) of the Act, as held by the Court.