STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RATTAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 28th of August, 1985, Sh. Manohar Lai,. Govern went Food Inspector (PW1) alongwith Dr. J. Chandra (PW3) went to the sweet meat shop of Rattan Lal, accused respondent located in Safidon and purchased 600 grams of bundi as sample from the bulk of bundi weighing 10 Kgs. exhibited for sale. The sample was divided and transferred in three clean and dry bottles, which were properly stoppered and sealed. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst, who vide his report, Exhibit PD found it to be adulterated due to the presence of unpermitted metanil yellow acid coaltar dye. On receipt of report, a complaint for offence under section 7(1) punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was filed against the accused.

(2.) THE trial Court after recording evidence and recording the statement of the accused, however, ultimately acquitted him on the technical ground as the report of the Public Analyst did not contain any reasons for coming to the conclusion, as to how the presence of unpermitted metanil yellow acid coaltar-dye was detected, Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of a Single Bench of this Court in Ravinder Kumar v. The State of Haryana, (1986 1) Vol 89 PLR 679.

(3.) MR . J.C. Sethi, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, contends that the observations of the Single Bench of this Court in Ravinder Kumar's case (supra) are not attracted to the fact's of the case in hand, as the report of the Public Analyst in this case revealed the presence of" unpermitted metanil yellow acid coaltar-dye.