SOM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 14-4-1982 Food Inspector H.R. Khanna along with Dr. B.S. Dahiya and Hardial inspected the premises of Som Parkash confectioner, situated near Railway Station Gurgaon and found him in possession of about 5 kilograms of Bundi Laddoos' of Vanaspati for sale. After serving a notice on Som Parkash petitioner the Food Inspector purchased 1500 grms of 'Bundi Laddoos' by way of sample for analysis. The sample was divided into three equal parts and was packed in three dry and clean packets. The packets were secured and sealed as per rules. One sealed packet of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, who vide his report Ex. PD found it to be adulterated due to the presence of unpermitted yellow (Metanil yellow) coaltar dye. On receipt of report of the Public Analyst a complaint was filed against the petitioner for an offence under Section 7 punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The trial court after recording evidence held the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1030/-. In default of payment of fine he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by this Judgment and order dated 12-6-1985 rendered by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Gurgaon, on 22-9-1986. The petitioner has now filed the present revision petition for setting aside his conviction and sentence.

(2.) I have hear Mr. G.S. Gill, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Gill, Advocate General, Haryana, for the State.

(3.) THE facts of the above mentioned case are similar to the facts of the present case in each respect. In this case the only test that was performed was paper chromatography. This test only revealed the presence of food colouring and it was not conclusive to determine that the coaltar dye used was permitted or non-permitted. There is no other data available on the report of Public Analyst or on the report of Director, Central Food Laboratory as to how they came to the conclusion that the coaltar dye was non-permitted. Consequently conviction of the petitioner cannot be upheld on the basis of a single test performed by the Public Analyst which was not enough to form a final judgment. I, therefore, allow this revision petition; set aside the conviction and sentence of the petition and acquit him of the offence with which he was charged. Fine, if deposited, be refunded.