PRITHIVI RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A sample of Ladoos was taken by the Food Inspector from the petitioner about 10 years ago i.e. on 14.10.1991 in accordance with the law, rules and the norms prescribed under the Food Adulteration Act. The petitioner, was prosecuted under Section, 165(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. As per report of the Public Analyst, Annexure P-2 dated 14.11.1991, the sample contained coaltar dye of yellow shade. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the complaint and subsequent proceedings taken thereon.

(2.) It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Ladoos were found to be adulterated on account of the existence of unpermitted acidic coaltar dye of yellow shade, which was detected by following the test of Paper Chromatography and that this test in view of State of Punjab v. Prem Chand, 1992 1 RCR(Cri) 591 and Pavan Manocha v. The State of Punjab,1992 2 FAC 217, is not a sure test and it could not be said that the sample contained unpermitted coaltar dye of yellow shade.

(3.) Moreover, it does not appear to be proved on record clearly that the dye used in preparation of the ladoos was prohibited. It has also not been reported in the report of the Public Analyst that it was injurious to health.