RATTAN LAL Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RATTAN Lal, aged 45 years, a Kuryana merchant of Amritsar, has filed this revision petition against his conviction and sentence under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter briefly referred to as 'the Act') awarded by the trial Magistrate and affirmed on appeal by the Court of Session.

(2.) THE Food Inspector had taken a sample of powdered turmeric (haldi) from the appellant's shop after complying with the prescribed formalities on 30th November, 1970. The public analyst reported, inter -alia, vide his report Exhibit PF, dated 8th December, 1970 that the sample of haldi contained lead chromate and was, as such, adulterated. The report is silent with regard to the presence of any Tepioca starch.

(3.) THE two reports were so inconsistent and contradictory that they may seem to lend support to the petitioner's argument that the samples tested respectively by the Public Analyst and the Director could not have originated from the same source The petitioner had, therefore, made an application dated 3rd May, 1971 for the sample in his possession being sent to the Director for analysis and report. The Food Inspector had also made an application for the charge being amended in conformity with the Director's report. Both these applications were disposed of by the trial Magistrate by separate orders on 24th May, 1971. The petitioner's application under section 13 (2) was rejected while the Food Inspector's application for amendment of the charge was accepted and the charge was consequently amended.