MUNICIPAL CORPORATION RAIPUR Vs. GOPALDAS REWACHAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the appeal preferred by the Municipal Corporation, Raipur against the acquittal of the respondents-accused of the offence punishable under section 7 (1)/16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE respondents-accused were admittedly the owners of the hotel known as "shyamsundar Hindu Hotel" situate at Hospital Ward, Raipur. On 8-10-1984, the Food Inspector Bari had purchased the sample of Bundi (a kind of sweets) at the said shop for purposes of analysis. After completing the necessary formalities, the same was sent for examination to the public analyst, who opined that the prohibited coaltar dye had been used for colouring; and as such the sample of Bundi was found adulterated (Ex. P-5 ). Accordingly the respondents-accused were put up for trial. They abjured the guilt. The trial Court, no doubt, found that the sample of Bundi was sold, to the Food Inspector and that the sample on analysis by the Public analyst, was found to be adulterated. However, the trial Court found that rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, which was mandatory in nature, was not complied with, inasmuch as, copy of the memorandum in Form VII and the specific impression of seal had not been sent to the Public Analyst separately, from the sealed container of the sample for analysis. The mandatory provision having not been complied with, the respondents-accused were acquitted of the offence in question. Hence, now the present appeal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation has urged that the trial Court was wrong in holding that (i) the sealed container of the sample and (ii) copy of the memorandum together with the specimen impression of seal were both not sent separately to the Public Analyst. It is urged in this connection that although one and the same person had personally delivered both the container of sample as well as the specimen impression of the seal to the Public Analyst but he had carried both these separately without jumbling up all items in one packet as is evident from the Food inspector's oral testimony and the particular letter sent to the Public analyst. This argument is vehemently controverted by the respondents' counsel in the light of the evidence on record. It is further stated that there being no proof regarding adding of preservative to the sample of Bundi by the Food Inspector, the same would have naturally become unfit for analysis and as such, the Public Analyst's report is without any consequence.