G D VERMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Amritsar dated November 22,1982 whereby the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 16 (I) (a) (ii) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Acc) imposed by the learned AddI. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, vide order dated June 15, 1982 was upheld.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on April 15,1981 Dr. M.S. Pannu, Government Food Inspector along with Dr.N.K. Aggarwal visited the shop of the accused -petitioner at Amritsar. The accused was having in his possession 50 packets of Chana Masala, each containing 100 grams for sale to the public. Dr- Pannu purchased 600 grams of Chana Masala from him for analysis on payment of Rs 24/- against receipt Exhibit PB. After completing the formalities, the Food Inspector sent a sample to the Public Analyst who subsequently found the same to be adulterated. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Dr. M.S. Pannu and Dr.N.K. Aggarwal. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code), the petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false complicity in the case, but led no evidence in defence. During the trial, the petitioner made a prayer for analysis of the sample by the Director. Central Food Laboratory. The Director, Central Food Laboratory vide his report Exhibit PF opined that the standards for masala mixtures of different formulations were not laid down under the Rules and there was only one standard for curry powder. It was further noticed by the Director that the sample did not conform to the requirement of Rule 37.A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955) (for short the Rules) concerning labels and also did not conform to the requirement of Labelling laid down in rule 42- L of the Rules. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner could not be held guilty under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act and accordingly acquitted him of the said charge, but convicted him for the contravention of Rule 37-A and 42 L of the Rules.

(3.) In this revision before me, it is contended by the learned defence counsel that the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, has surpassed the report of the Public Analyst, It was on the basis of this report that it was found that there was infringement of Rules 37-A and 42.L of the Rules and on that ground the petitioner was convicted by the trial Court. Rule 37-A prescribes that in case of all types of proprietary foods where fancy names or trade names are used, the name of the food or category under which it falls in these Rules, is also to be mentioned in the label. Similarly, Rule 42 L lays down that in case of masala every packet of mixed masala shall bear a label specifying the ingredients of the products in descending order by weight. In the present case, label has been proved on the record and the perusal of the same would show that these rules have been violated. It has not been mentioned in descending order by weight the various ingredients used in this chana masala. It will further be noticed that the fancy name or trade named which has been used, does not have any declaration ie. food article belongs to a particular category of food as described in the Rules. Be that as it may the Food Inspector initiated prosecution against the petitioner under 5. 16 (l)(a)(i) read with 5. 7 of the Act and on that basis, the Magistrate took cognizance of the case against the petitioner. This was the case which the petitioner was called upon by the Magistrate to meet. This ground, however, failed in view of a Directors report. I may point out that the precise ground on which the prosecution is launched should be stated clearly in the complaint and since the ground mentioned in the complaint filed by the Food Inspector was negatived by the report of the Director, the bottom was out the prosecution case as stated in the complaint. Bearing in mind that liability eventually was sought to be fastened on the petitioner on an entirely different ground not mentioned in the complaint, I feel that the conviction of the petitioner on the ground that he violated rules 37- A and 42. L of the Rules could have been sustained.