DISTRICT FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. KEDARNATH CHIRANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is from Judgment and Order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sibsagar acquitting the accused -respondent of charge under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE District Food Inspector, Sibsagar, Jorhat collected sample of Coriander (Dhania) Powder from the accused's Mill, namely, Chirania Flour Mill, on 16 -3 -72 and caused it to be analysed by the Public Analyst, who reported it to be adulterated; and after proper sanction, the accused -respondent was prosecuted; and charged under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter 'the Act'). After framing of charge the accused's sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory which also reported it to be adulterated. At trial the complainant was cross -examined and two more prosecution witnesses examined. The accused examined himself in defence. The trial Court found uncontroverted that the sample of Coriander (Dhania) powder was properly collected, and rightly superseded the report of the Public Analyst and acted upon the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory, who reported excess total ash of 1.3 per cent, and presence of a few turmeric starch on microscopical examination, without mentioning the percentage. The Court, however, held that the excess of 1.3 per cent of total ash might have been caused by defective packing; that it was the burden of the complainant to prove that it was not so; and that the complainant had no evidence to show; and that consequently the benefit of the failure of the complainant to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt would go to the accused. As regards presence of turmeric starch, the Court held that it was a trifling matter turmeric also being edible and the mixture so insignificant that it had to be detected in microscopical examination, Holding both the defects to be trifling, the accused was given the benefit under Section 95, I.P.C. and acquitted. Hence this appeal.

(3.) P . W. 1, the Food Inspector, is found from his deposition to have committed no error of procedure in collecting, packing and sending the samples. He is in this regard, corroborated by P, Ws. 2 and 3. The report of the Central Food Laboratory clearly mentions that the seals were intact. The statement of P. W. 1 that he took the sample in a Cellophen bag and the packet could not be air -tight and insects having entered into the packet could be of no consequence in face of the report that the seals were found by the Central Food Laboratory intact. The learned trial Court overlooked this vital piece of evidence and misdirected itself into putting the burden on the complainant and giving the benefit of the complainant's failure to prove, to the accused. D. W. I only explained how the grinding was done. Besides, the excess of total ash could not be the natural consequence of leakage of any air into the container.