FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. NOOR MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A grocery shop owner was prosecuted for violations of the provisions of Sec. 7 (i) and (iii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 50 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules punishable under sec. 16 (1) (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act. Sample involved is cumin. Ext. P9 report of analysis showed that it does not conform to the standard and is therefore adulterated. The further accusation is that he had no licence. The Magistrate acquitted the accused. Complainant, Food Inspector, has come up in appeal.

(2.) AS P. W. 1, the appellant has spoken to the various formalities observed by him in the matter of purchase, sampling and forwarding. The necessary documents were also produced and proved. Hie peon, examined as p. W. 2, was also present when action was taken. He supported P. W. 1, P. W. 3 is the present Executive Officer of the Panchayat. He was not the officer at the time when action was taken. He proved Exts. P11 and P12 produced from his office to show that the respondent had no licence at the time when action was taken. Action was taken at 11 A. M. on 4-111981. Ext. P12 is the carbon copy of the licence issued to the respondent. It was valid only upto 31-3-1981. Ext. P11 is the next application filed by the respondent for renewal of licence. It was only on 5-11-1981 which is after P. W. 1 has taken action. Respondent has not produced any record to show that he had licence on 4-11-1981. P. W. 4 is the district Food Inspector who is also the Local Health Authority. He also proved that the required formalities were complied with.

(3.) UNDER Sec. 13 (5) the report of analysis is evidence of the facts stated therein and it can be accepted without examining the Analyst. The Public Analyst is a statutory functionary and is an expert in his field. When he gives his opinion it must be taken that the opinion was duly formed after doing whatever is necessary to form that opinion. He is not expected to say what all things were done by him. When he gives the percentage of ash insoluble in hydrochloric acid it is not necessary for him to say that a particular chemical test was conducted. That is understood. Otherwise the percentage cannot be given. Position may be different in a case where the report of analysis gives intrinsic evidence or from other materials it is clearly establishing beyond doubt that the required tests were not conducted. Otherwise it is the duty of the person who challenges the report to cite and examine the analyst to show the results were arrived at without proper analysis. It may be illegal to insist that whenever the accused challenges the correctness of the findings in the report the prosecution will have to examine the Analyst and clear the doubt.