NARENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 17-3-1994 the Food Inspector, R. C. Gupta, at M. G. Road, Sonkutch inspected the shop of the accused/applicant and on its inspection found that the applicant was offering for sale number of items of sweets and other food. He was yet not having any license issued under Rule 50 of the M. P. Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The Food Inspector also suspected that the BARFI which was being offered there for sale was adulterated, therefore, he after following requisite formalities also obtained sample thereof for food analysis. It was thereafter as per procedure prescribed put to analysis. The analysis revealed it to be adulterated. With due sanction the applicant was accordingly prosecuted for adulteration and for want of license. He pleaded not guilty. The trial ended in conviction. He was thus sentenced under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short "act" hereafter) to six months RI and fine Rs. 1,000/- and under Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act to three months RI and fine of Rs. 500/ -. The applicant took the matter to the Court of Sessions in appeal. But the learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the appeal dismissed it and upheld the conviction and sentences. Hence the applicant has come up in this revision before the High Court.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant made submissions in support of the revision application. The learned Panel Lawyer made counter submission.

(3.) HAVING heard the arguments I have gone through the record. After the presentation of the complaint Certificate from Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ex. P/20 has been obtained. It says that sample showed presence of non permitted coaltar colour (Green S) and B. R. Reading of extracted fat at 40 C which was less than the minimum prescribed limit as laid down in item No. 11. 02. 21 of PFA Rules. The sample was thus opined to the adulterated. However, I find that the certificate does not mention the chemical class and colour index of the allegedly unpermitted colour found in the sample. Thus the report is deficient in this respect. It is, therefore, found to be infirm and in this connection reference may be made to the following observation from Vijay Kumar Agarwal v. State of M. P. 1992 (1) P. F. A. Cases 137: It was necessary for the Public Analyst to disclose the chemical class and colour index of the allegedly unpermitted colour found in the sample.