SHASHI MEHTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Shashi Mehta has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act) by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/-. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur has upheld his conviction and sentence. He has now come up in revision.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 14th May 1982, Food Inspector Sh. H.S. Saini purchased a sample of milk from the petitioner, who was then present in his shop at Talwara. The sample was divided into 3 equal parts and each part was put in a dry clean bottle after adding the preservative to it. One sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, who found the same to the adultered vide the report, Exhibit PE. As stated earlier the learned Judicial magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently argued before me that rule 18 of the rules has been complied with in this case because the Public Analyst clearly mentioned in his report that the sample of the milk sent to him for analysis was properly sealed and fastened and he found the seal in tact and the seal contained on the container of the sample talied with specimen impression of the seal separately sent to the Public Analyst and the sample was found in a fit condition for analysis. According to the learned counsel for the State this observation made in the report by the Public Analyst should be treated as conclusive evidence of the fact that the specimen impression of the seal was separately sent by the Food Inspector in compliance with the provisions of rule 18 of Rules. There is no substance in this contention because these observations were not by the Public Analyst in his own hand. The recitals "the seals fixed on the container of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector" are printed in the form No. III which is the report of the Public Analyst and it appears that the Public Analyst signed the report including these printed recitals mechanically because the Food Inspector admittedly did not send the specimen impression of the seal separately to him. The prosecution has led no other evidence to show that the specimen impression of the seal was sent separately by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst. In this state of affairs, the prosecution case cannot be said to have been proved to the hilt against the petitioner because non compliance with the previsions of the rule 18 of the Rules tells heavily upon the evidentiary value of the report of the Public Analyst and no conviction can safely be based on such evidence.