AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 (1) (a) (i) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and has been sentenced to 6 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. His conviction and sentence has been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Meerut. Hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders. According to the prosecution case a sample of emarti was purchased by the Food Inspector from the applicant. He paid Rs. 4. 80 paise and the total quantity purchased was 600 Grams. This sample was divided into 3 separate phials. One of the phials in the possession of the Food Inspector was sent for analysis. The Public Analyst disclosed that the sample was coloured. with an unpermitted coal tar dye, namely matanial yellow dour index of 1956 No. 13065. On receipt of the obove report sanction for prosecution was obtained. The applicant has been prosecuted and convicted on the above facts. Both the courts below have held the prosecution case established beyond all reasonable doubt after consideration of the evidence on the record both oral and documentary.

(3.) COUNSEL for the applicant has argued that only 600 Grams of Emarti had been taken as a sample by the Food Inspector, which was divided into three separate phials, each phial contained 200 grams. He has pointed out to Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and has referred to item No. 14 relating to prepared food under which the approximate quantity to be taken is 500 grams. He urges that in the instant case since only 200 grams of Emarti was sent in the phial despatched to the public Analyst, the quantity was inadequate and could not be properly analysed. In this connection learned Counsel has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1975 All Cri C 156 in which it appears that the Supreme Court has made observations that Rule 22 framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was mandatory. This question however was reconsidered by a larger bench of that court, which is reported in 1978 All Cri C 109 (SC ). In that Supreme Court decision, it has been clearly ruled that Rule 22 of the-Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is directory and not mandatory. I am bound by the decision of Supreme Court. It may be further noted that the quantity, which is required under Rule 22 is just an approximate quantity to be supplied. This indicates that sufficient latitude or margin has been left on either side with regard to the quantum of the sample that is to be taken for the purposes of analysis.