(1.) The petitioners conviction under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is impugned primarily on the ground that there has been no compliance of the requirements of section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, in as much as the contents of the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, Gaziabad. Exhibit P.F., were not put to him and this has prejudiced him completely. In order to appreciate this contention, which to my mind deserves to prevail, the following facts only be taken notice of.
(2.) A complaint was filed against the petitioner by the Food Inspector to the effect that in the tea leaves purchased from him by the latter, it was found by the Public Analyst vide his report Exhibit P.D., that the same contained one piece of iron filing, the size of which was 4 m.m against the maximum prescribed size of 1 m.m. Since during the trial, the petitioner did not accept the correctness of this report, he prayed for sending a sample of the tea leaves to the Central Food Laboratory, Gaziabad for a fresh analysis. As a result of that, the Director of the said Laboratory reported vide Exhibit P.P. that though the magnetic particulars which were found in the sample were not more than 1 m.m. size i.e. within the permissible limits, yet the said sample was adulterated in view of the fact that the crude fibre found in that sample was to the extent of 20 per cent instead of the prescribed 17 per cent When the petitioner was examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the court put both the reports i.e. Exhibits P.D. and P.F. to the petitioner without inviting his personal attention to the contents of either of these. The submissions of Sri Dewan, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner now are that firstly, the report of the Public Analyst Exhibit P.D. stood superseded by the latter report of the Director Exhibit P.F., in view of the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, and could not be used for any purpose against the petitioner; secondly, the report of the Director, Exhibit P.F. also could not be used against him for the reason that the petitioner had never been accused of adulteration on account of deficiency or excess of crude fibre in the tea leaves, alleged to have been purchased from him and thirdly, the contents of Exhibit P.F. were not specifically put to the petitioner which essentially has prejudiced his case.
(3.) It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner was never accused of adulteration on account of there being any excess or deficiency of crude fibre in the tea leaves which were purchased from him. Similarly, it is not disputed that the report of the Public Analyst, Exhibit P.D. stood superseded by the latter report of the Director,- Exhibit P.F. and the said former report could not be used against the petitioner for any purpose. In the light of these facts, it is manifest that the use of both the reports Exhibits P.D. and P.F. against the petitioner simultaneously, had definitely prejudiced his case. In the light of the report of the Director, the petitioner could not be held guilty of the accusation that the tea leaves alleged to have been purchased from him were in any way adulterated in the sense that the same contained iron filing or particles more than the prescribed limits. It could also not be used for the purpose in the absence of any accusation against the petitioner that the crude fibre contents of those leaves were in any way at variance with the prescribed standard. It is thus, patent that the accusation against the petitioner was nullified by the report of the Director, Exhibit P.F., and the material on the basis of which he has been held guilty i.e. the extent of crude fibre, was different from the prescribed limit, was never the accusation or charge against him.