STATE OF ASSAM Vs. PURANMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is from the judgment of acquittal of the charge under S.7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, shortly 'the Act.'

(2.) The District Food Inspector of Jorhat purchased 450 grams of "Kashmiri Mirchi Powder" from the respondent's shop "Bisudhu Masala Bhandar" for the purpose of analysis and sent one part of the sample to the Public Analyst who reported it to be of adulterated chillies powder which was artificially dyed with prohibited coal tar dye prosecuted the respondent was charged under S.7 read with S.16 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty.

(3.) At the trial, the prosecution examined 3, while the defence examined 2 witnesses including the accused-respondent himself. As the respondent challenged the report of the Public Analyst, the sample produced by the Food Inspector in Court was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta under S.13(2) of the Act who also reported the sample to be adulterated. In his statement the respondent did not deny that the Food Inspector obtained the sample of chillies powder from him for the purpose of analysis but said that the chillies powder in question was not meant for sale as it did not belong to him but was brought by his customer, Chiranjilal More for grinding in his Chakki Mill. Before the trial Court the defence urged four grounds, namely, (i) that the Food Inspector had not complied with the mandatory provisions of R.14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 1955. shortly 'the Rules' inasmuch as there was nothing to show that he took the chillies powder in clean dry bottles and hence the certificate of the Director, Central Food Labouratory could not be relied upon : (ii) that there was no proper sanction order : (iii) that the sample was analysed by the, Central Food Laboratory after lapse of about three years from the date of collection and it underwent changes during this period; and (iv) that there was no sale of the sample within the meaning of S.2(xiii) of the Act in view of the statement of the respondent that it belonged to his customer. The trial court rejected grounds Nos.(ii), (iii) and (iv) but found sufficient force on the first ground i.e. ground No.(i), holding that the prosecution had failed to establish that the containers of the chillies powder were dry and clean as enjoined by R.14 of the Rules and acquitted the respondent giving him benefit of doubt. Hence this appeal.