OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 7th November, 1978, Sh. C. L. Grover, Government Food inspector, Ambala visited the premises of Om Parkash, situated on Railway Road Yamuna Nagar at 2.15 p. m. and found Om Parkash a servant of Janak Raj having four kilograms of coloured 'Barfee' in the shop for sale. He purchased 1500 grams of coloured Barfee, divided the same into three equal parts and sealed it in three clean tins. One of the sample tin was sent to the Public Analyst who reported that the sample was adulterated as it contained unpermitted red coal tar dye. On receipt of the report, a complaint was filed in the Court against Om Parkash and Janak Raj and they were tried for an offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. They were held guilty and were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each by Sh. P.K. Goel, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri. Against this judgment dated 18th 19th September, 1984 recording their conviction, Om Parkash and Janak Raj filed an appeal. Appeal of Janak Raj was accepted by the Learned Sessions Judge. Ambala vide his judgment dated 18th May, 1985 and he was acquitted. Conviction of Om Parkash was maintained, but sentence of fine imposed upon him was reduced to Rs. 1000/-. It is against this judgment that Om Parkash has filed the present revision petition.

(2.) THE only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, no offence was made out against the petitioner and his conviction could not be sustained. A reference was made to the report of the Public Analyst Ex. PD wherein be mentioned that the sample contained unpermitted red coal tar dye and as such, was unsuitable for human consumption. He had not given as to what type of coal tar dye he actually found in the sample. This contention on behalf of the petitioner is quite valid and the petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt on this simple ground. According to rules 28 and 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955, use of red coaltar dye is permissible which included red coal tar dye of the name of Carmosine, Fast Red E, Amaranth, Erythrosine and Tartrazine. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the Public Analyst to have said what type of coal tar dye-was found in the sample. Similar view was expressed in the case State of Rajasthan Versus Talsa Ram, 1977(2), Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 82.

(3.) AS a result of above discussion, I accept the revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner and acquit him of the offence with which he was charged. His bail bond is discharged. Petition accepted.