DIN DAYAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision raises a question of considerable importance, namely, whether the provisions of Section 10(2) of the U. P. Pure Food Act, No. 32 of 1950, are ultra vires of the Constitution in so far as they lay down that in any proceeding under the Act a certificate of a Public Analyst given under Sub-section (1) of that section shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. The applicant Din Dayal has been convicted under Section 42 of that Act read with Section 4. The charge against him was that on 3-7-1953, he sold adulterated ghee to the Food Inspector holding it out as pure ghee and that the article was not of the substance, nature and quality demanded by the purchaser. The Food Inspector, it is alleged, found the accused selling ghee as pure ghee. He purchased a quantity of the ghee and sampled it out in three phials and sealed them, and handed over one Of the sealed phials to the accused. One phial was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis; and the report of the Public Analyst was that it was "grossly adulterated". The accused was prosecuted for contravention of Section 4 of the U. P. Pure Food Act, which enjoins that no person shall sell, offer, or expose for sale, food which is not of the substance or of the nature or quality demanded by the purchaser, which contravention was made punishable under Section 42 of the Act, and he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 40/- or in default to suffer further one month's rigorous imprisonment. The evidence against the applicant consisted of the testimony of two witnesses and the conviction was based principally upon the report of the Public Analyst.

(2.) It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the ghee in question was pure ghee and, since Section 10(2) of the U. P. Pure Food Act of 1950 made the facts stated in the certificate of the Public Analyst conclusive evidence of the matter, the law precluded the applicant from challenging the report of the Public Analyst, either by summoning him and subjecting him to cross-examination in order to show that the report was erroneous, or by having the article examined by some other expert with a view to point out that the certificate of the Public Analyst was wrong. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that Section 10(2) of the U. P. Pure Food Act offends against Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. His submission is that in giving such arbitrary powers to the public Analyst in making out a certificate which may to all intents and purposes be erroneous, the section denies the accused the equal protection of the laws and it further takes away the right to practice his profession of the sale of pure ghee which would inevitably be the result if the conviction of the applicant is allowed to be based upon such a certificate of the Public Analyst.

(3.) In order to appreciate this question I may first refer to the provisions of Section 10(2) of the U. P. Pure Food Act. It provides that in any proceeding under the Act a certificate of the Public Analyst given under Sub-section (1) shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. This provision is alleged to be discriminatory and hostile upon the assumption that if a Public Analyst chooses to be dishonest in one case and if the report of his analysis is bona fide wrong in another case, in either event the law by making his certificate conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein makes the whole thing discriminatory and hostile and does not give the citizen equal protection of the laws.