ISRAR ELAHI Vs. STATE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist Israr Elahi has been convicted under Sec. 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 in default further R.I. for six months.

(2.) The prosecution case was that the revisionist was found displaying for sale orange coloured lemon drops in his shop in Muradganj Bazar, Etawah at 11-00 A.M. on 25-10-1977 and a sample of the said drops taken by the food inspector was found to contain prohibited coaltar dye orange II. The storage of lemon drops for sale, the taking of sample and the fact that the sample proved adulterated are concluded by the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.

(3.) In revision the learned counsel has urged three legal points. The first point is that the charge was defective and gave insufficient notice of the offence to the revisionist. The record shows that the charge gave full particulars of the sample taking and mentioned that according to the Public Analyst's report dated 7-2-78 the lemon drop sample had been found coloured by a prohibited coaltar dye which made the revisionist guilty under Sec. 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. This is, in my opinion, adequate notice of full details of the offence. The mere fact that the name of the prohibited coallar dye (Orange 11) was not directly mentioned in the charge (indirectly it is found because the particulars of the Public Analyst's report are given) or that R.I. 28 which enumerates permissible coaltar dye or R.I. 23 which bars any colouring matter other than permitted by the rules have not been specified cannot make the charge defective. These omissions can by no stretch cause any misapprehension in the mind of the accused or prejudice his defence by misleading him in the slightest degree as to the accusation he was to answer. I would, therefore, hold that there was no defect in the charge. In this connection Sec. 464 Cr. P.C. is also relevant. Even the absence of a charge cannot vitiate a conviction unless a failure of justice has been occasioned thereby. There is no question of this in the present case.