STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DAULAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 22-6-1983 Shri Harbans Singh Food Inspector along with Shri N. I. Singh Bawa inspected the factory premises of Daulat Ram accused-respondent situated in Shastri Market, Kapurthala and found him in possession of about 200 bottles of carbonated water with cola essence for sale. After disclosing his identity the Food Inspector purchased 9 bottles of carbonated water with cola essence and made payment for the same vide receipt Ex. PB. The sample bottles were divided into three equal parts. One sample was handed over to Chander Veer Peon for depositing the same with the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh and the remaining two parts were kept in the office of District Health Officer, Kapurthala. The Public Analyst vide his report Ex. PE opined that the contents contained 220 parts per million of Sachharin, an artificial sweetener against maximum prescribed standard of 100 parts per million. The contents also did not bear any declaratory label regarding the addition of artificial sweetener as required under Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955. The contents were contaminated with coliform bacteria. On receipt of this, report complaint was filed in the Court of Shri Harchand Singh Maunder, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala for trial of the respondent for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.

(2.) DURING trial the contention of the respondent was that he was falsely implicated in the case and he was not keeping the carbonated water for sale. One Naginder Pal Singh was examined by him in his defence.

(3.) BEFORE the learned trial Court various contentions were raised. It was urged that the article taken into possession as sample was not for sale and as there was variation in the reports of Public Analyst and Director, Central Food Laboratory, the benefit of the same was to go to the respondent and he was entitled to acquittal on these grounds. These contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent, however, did not find favour with the learned trial Court but the respondent was acquitted on the ground that the sample was not properly taken by the Food Inspector and at was not a representative sample. The learned counsel for the appellant contended before us that Rule 22-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules provides where the sample is sealed it should be sent for analysis in the same condition all there was no necessity for mixing the sample in order to make it a representative one. The contention of the learned counsel is not tenable as the sample of carbonated water is to be representative one. In the instant case the Food Inspector purchased 9 bottles by way of sample. These bottles were not opened nor their contents were mixed. The samples were not divided in three separate parts for putting the same in three separate dry and clean bottles. Three samples of three bottles each were taken and only one sample was sent to the Public Analyst. It was not the case of the complainant that the contents of these bottles were common. The contents of three separate and distinct bottles might have not been uniform. One of the sample which was sent to the Public Analyst cannot be said to be representative sample as none out of the nine bottles could be taken as a representative sample of each other regarding its contents. When sample is not representative the prosecution must fail. Anil Kumar v. Food Inspector, Jind 1982(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 9 is an authority to that effect. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the observation made in the above mentioned authority we fined that the respondent was rightly acquitted of the charge and the findings to that effect are affirmed.