STATE OF ASSAM Vs. AMRIT LAL GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Cachar, at Silchar whereby he bas acquitted the accused of the charges under Ss. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for short, "the Act".

(2.) Way back on 27.6.77 the Food Inspector came to the shop of the Respondent took samples of "Dahi" and "Bundiya" for analysis and sent the samples to the Public Analyst for analysis and report. The Respondent was owner -cum -employee -cum - cook of the stall. It appears from the record of the case that he did not know English so his statement was recorded in the local language in which be could just put his signature. The Respondent is aged around 73 years. After the Food Inspector had taken the samples, he sent one part of the sample containing the signature of the accused to the public Analyst. The memorandum with the specimen impression of the seal were also seat to the public Analyst for comparison, as required under the provisions of "the Act" and "the Rules". The Public Analyst reported that the standard of the quality of "Dahi" was within the limits prescribed by the Prevention of Food Adultration Rules, 1955, for short 'the Rules'' read with Appendix -B to "the Rules". The Public Analyst reported 'hat the sample of Bundiyas sent was adulterated as it contained prohibited colour, namely, metanil yellow, a non permitted colouring matter. When the records of the case were rent to the Magistrate he caused a sample to be sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for examination and report. The Director, Central Food Laboratory submitted his report, vide Ext. 7. He opined that the added colouring material in "Bundiya" .was metanil yellow, a non permitted coal tar dye and, accordingly, they were adulterated under Sec. 2(ia) (j) of 'the Act' read with Rule 28 of "the Rules". Seen on 13 (5) of "the Act" provides that the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory is final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, it supersedes the report of the public Analyst. When the trial commenced two witnesses were examined in support of the allegations, namely, the Food Inspector and the Peon who had accompanied him. P.W. 1, Shri T.K. Dutta Choudhury, Area Food Inspector stated that the samples were taken in containers, they were labelled and addressed in compliance with the provisions of Rules 14 and 15 of "the Rules". The samples were packed, fastened and sealed as required by Rule 16. Thereafter, the containers of samples in a sealed packet alongwith the memorandum with the specimen impression of the seal were sent to the Public Analyst for analysis separately. The Food Inspector stated that on receipt of the report of the Public Analyst a case was instituted against the accused. On the evidence learned Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, "a default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Learned Magistrate turned down the plea of the accused that he bad kept the coloured Bundiyas "for feeding birds". On appeal learned Sessions Judge also rejected the plea taken up by the accused. Indeed, if the Bundiyas were made for the birds there was so purpose for decorating the food with colour. Binds have no special fancy for colour; like human being. However learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order set aside the conviction and sentence on the ground that the Food Inspector had failed to comply with the provisions of Rules 17 and 18 of "the Rules". Learned Sessions Judge held that the provisions were mandatory and the Rules were violated, and, therefore, no conviction could be sustained on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst. IN short, the learned Judge held that the copy of the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet were not sent to the Public Analyst separately as was required to be done under Rule 18 of "the Rules". The breach of the rules caused prejudice to the accused and accordingly, the accused was acquitted.

(3.) The State has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal. The first submission. In that the provisions of the Rules ware fully complied and the order of acquittal. In based on total non -reading of the evidence of P.W. 1, Shri T. K. Dutta Choudhury, Area Food Inspector, The second submission is that to any view of the matter the samples were seat to the Director, Central Food Laboratory after due compliance with the provisions of 'the Act'' and "the Rules", and, the report of the Director clinched the issue that the sample of food sent was adulterated.