KARAMCHAND Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts giving rise to this case are that on 1-9-1974, 30 ice candies by way of sample were taken from the shop of the applicant situated at Khargone. The sample was divided into 3 bottles and after completing the formalities, as required by law and rules thereunder, one sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Indore for analysis, who on examination, as per his report (Ex. P-7) opined that the sample examined by him was adulterated. On these facts, the applicant was prosecuted which resulted in his conviction which was also maintained by the lower appellate court. Hence this revision.

(2.) The Food Inspector, Amritlal Jain (P.W. 1) who took the sample office-candy from the applicant has only stated that he purchased 30 ice-candies by way of sample. He has nowhere deposed as to what was the weight of the ice-candies nor there is any evidence to indicate in what quantity the sample was purchased. Similar is the statement of Manohar Tode (P.W. 2). None of the these witnesses have stated that minimum quantity required for the purpose of analysis was purchased from the applicant when the sample was taken. These witnesses have also not given any description about the said ice candies regarding its size or even approximate weight of each candy. Thus in the absence of any evidence regarding the exact quantity purchased from the applicant for the purpose of analysis, it is difficult to assume that minimum requisite quantity as required by rule 22 of the Rules was obtained from the applicant when the sample was purchased and consequently in the absence of this material evidence it is also difficult to believe that the sample sent to the Public Analyst for examination also satisfied the minimum requirement. In fact the report of the Public Analyst (Ex. P-7) is also silent on this point. In these circumstances, in the absence of proof about the requisite quantity of sample, I am of the opinion that the conviction of the applicant cannot be sustained.

(3.) A bare reading of this report shows that it is nothing but the opinion expressed by the Public Analyst without mentioning therein any analytical factual date or the percentage or any reasons for arriving at the said conclusion.