PADAM CHANDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MURLIDHAR, J. The applicant Padam Chandra has been convicted under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) and sentenced to six months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default further rigorous imprisonment of six months.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that on 17-8-1977 a sample of Bundi ka Laddu displayed for sale at the shop of the applicant was obtained by the Food Inspector. On analysis the Public Analyst vide his report dated 21-6-1977 found the sample to contain the prohibited coal-tar dye metanil yellow. THE applicant was accordingly prosecuted. His case was that he had prepared the Laddus on the order of D. W. 1 Ram Swarup from the materials, including the colour, supplied by Ram Swarup and the same were not for sale but for delivery to Ram Swarup. This defence has been disbelieved by the courts below and the matter is concluded by findings of fact in which no infirmity could be shown.

(3.) LASTLY, learned counsel reiterated the plea that the Central Food Laboratory had reported that while the seal of the outer cover of the sample tallied with the sample the inner cover seal of the sample was different. It was contended that this meant that there could be no assurance that the original sample was sent. I find myself in agreement with the lower appellate court's view that the identity of the outer cover seal fixed the identity of sample phial. I also find the explanation of the Food Clerk of C. M. O. Office, Mainpuri, to the effect that the inner cover was already sealed by the Food Inspector and, therefore, only the outer cover was sealed by him and hence the inner cover seal did not tally with the sample seal, to be quite cogent and satisfactory. The trial court had also examined the Food Clerk. I find nothing wrong with the lower appellate Court's acceptance of this explanation. Before leaving the judgment I would like to mention that there is one part of the judgment with which I must express my disagreement. After finding that the discrepancy of the seal on the inner cover was of no consequence and this would not vitiate the report of the Central Food Laboratory, the learned Sessions Judge went on to observe "in any case I am of the view that as the appellant had not taken advantage of Section 13 (2) of the Act within the stipulated time he should not be permitted to take advantage of the defect in respect of which objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. After the lower appellate Court's conduct in forwarding the sample for analysis by the Central Food Laboratory and receipt of the report this observation must be disapproved. For the purposes of this case there can be no question of the accused having no right to obtain the Central Food Laboratory report after 10 days of the intimation or latest after his appearance in the ease. Therefore, I would rest the decision of the discrepancy in the seal found by the Central Food Laboratory not vitiating the prosecution only on the ground of the discrepancy having been satisfactorily explained.