KAILASH CHAND GAGGAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Urban Health Officer, Nagaon Municipality (P.W. 1) accompanied by Food Inspector and others visited the Oil Mill of revision petition on 10-9-1978. When they went to the godown they saw two labourers sealing tins. The labourers escaped. Revision petitioner and his father came there. In response to questions, revision petitioner stated that the tins contained rape seed oil. After observing all legal formalities. P.W. 1 purchased requisite quantity of rape seed oil for the purpose of analysis. He divided the sample into three equal parts and dealt with the same as required by the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the Act") and the Rules framed thereunder. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst with memorandum by special messenger and two samples were similarly sent to the Local Health Authority. Report of Public Analyst showed that the sample was adulterated inasmuch as it contained prohibited coal tar dye. After duly obtaining sanction. Food Inspector lodged complaint under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 against the revision petitioner. Copy of report with intimation was sent to the revision petitioner by registered post. Revision petitioner moved the trial court to send for another part of the sample and to forward it to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for analysis. That was done. The Director reported that the sample was adulterated inasmuch as it contained oil soluble coal tar dye. Revision petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court. Prosecution examined P.W. 1 and an independent witness P.W. 2. Revision petitioner did not examine any witness hut denied the truth of the prosecution evidence. The trial court upheld the prosecution case and convicted the revision petitioner and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000.00 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Appeal filed by him before the Sessions Court was dismissed. Hence this revision.

(2.) There is no dispute before me that sample of rape seed oil kept in the godown attached to the Oil Mill of the revision petitioner was taken for analysis. There is also no dispute that the certificate issued by the Director. Central Food Laboratory superseding the report of the Public Analyst showed that the sample was adulterated. It is not argued before the for the revision petitioner that there has been any illegality or irregularity in taking the sample or dealing with the sample in the further stages of the process or that there has been information of any of the Rules governing the matter.

(3.) The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the learned Magistrate, who sent for the second part of the sample from the Local Health Authority and despatched it to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, has not recorded that he acted in conformity with the requirements of Section 13(2B) of the Act and therefore the certificate of the Director cannot be relied on. Sub-Section (1) of Section 13 of the Act requires the Public Analyst to deliver his report to the Local Health Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis. Sub-Section 121 requires the Local Health Authority, after institution of the prosecution, to forward in the prescribed manner a copy of the report to the accused informing him that if he so desired he may make an application to the court within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local Health Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. Sub-Section (2A) states that when an application is so made, the court shall require the Local Health Authority to forward the part or parts of the sample kept by the said authority and upon such requisition being made, Local Health Authority shall forward the part or parts of the sample to the court within a period of five days from the date of receipt of such requisition. On receipt of the part or parts of the sample from the Local Health Authority, Sub-Section (2B) requires the Court to ascertain that the mark and seal or fastening as reprovided in Section 11 (1)(b) are intact and the signature or thumb impression, as the case may be, is not tampered with, and despatch the part or, as the case may be, one of the parts of the sample under its own seal to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. The Director shall thereupon send a certificate to the Court in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the part of the sample specifying the result of the analysis. Thus it can he seen that when part of the sample is received from the Local Health Authority, the court is required to perform a threefold function, namely, ascertaining that the mark and seal or fastening are intact, ascertaining that the signature or thumb impression is not tampered with and despatching the part or parts under its own seal to the Director of Central Food Laboratory.