SHAM SUNDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has assailed his conviction under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, the Act) wherein he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with al fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.

(2.) THE only point raised in this revision is that from the report of the Public Analyst Exhibit PD and from the report of Director, Central Food Laboratory Exhibit PF it is not proved that the sample of Gajar Pak taken from the shop of the petitioner -accused was an adulterated food. Learned counsel for the petitioner -accused submitted that the Public Analyst in his report Exhibit PD has mentioned about four tests that he conducted. Against fourth test he has written "Test for colour by paper chromatography : unpermitted orange coal -tar dye present". On the basis of this finding he opined that the sample contains unpermitted orange coal tar dye. Another sample was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, for opinion. He conducted five tests. Against fifth test he has written "Test for presence of water soluble coal tar colour: Positive. A non -permitted coal tar colour identified as Orange G -II present". On the basis of this test, he opined that the sample showed presence of non -permitted coal tar dye.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner accused submitted that paper chromatography test is not sufficient to detect the presence of unpermitted coal tar dye. He also argued that this test revealed that presence of food colour but it was not conclusive to determine that the coal tar dye used was permitted or non -permitted.