HANS RAJ Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HANS Raj, Petitioner, was convicted by the trial Magistrate under Section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act), for the alleged sale of adulterated milk and sentenced to fifteen months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default of payment of which he was to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal the Additional Sessions Judge upheld his conviction, but reduced the sentence to six months' rigorous imprisonment, maintaining the fine. Hence the present revision petition.

(2.) THE prosecution story is that on 8th of March, 1968, at 10.00 a.m. Krishan Kumar, Food Inspector, P.W. 1, along with Dr. Joginder Singh, went to the shop of the Petitioner, who is a tialwai, in Bazar Nawan Kot, Amritsar, and offered to purchase some quantity from out of 8 litres of cow's milk with him. He, it is said, disclosed his identity to the Petitioner and told him that he was going to take sample of that milk for analysis. 60 Paise were paid to the accused, - -vide receipt, Exhibit P. B. and the milk so purchased was divided into three equal parts in different bottles, in each of which were added 18 drops of 'formal in' preservative. These samples were then duly sealed. Necessary documents were prepared and thumb -marked or signed by the witnesses and the Petitioner. One of the sealed bottles was sent by the Food Inspector to Public Analyst for analysis and the report, Exhibit P. F. was received from him on 11th of March, 1968. According to this report,, the contents of milk were found to be as under:

(3.) A bare reading of these two provisions leaves no manner of doubt that once a certificate is obtained from the Director the same is final and conclusive evidence of the facts given therein and the report of the Public Analyst stands automatically superseded. When the report is not of any consequence after the receipt of the certificate of the Director, it follows as a necessary corollary that anything said to the contrary by the Public Analyst, whether in his report or as a witness in Court, cannot be taken into consideration by the Court. It is the certificate of the Director alone that can form the basis on which the guilt or innocence of the accused hinges, subject of course to the existence of other necessary ingredients of the offence. The only question that survives for consideration is whether in the instant case the certificate of the Director complied with the requirements of law and could be said to be a valid one. The argument raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that the certificate, Exhibit C. 1, does not indicate that the Director personally did the analysis of the sample of milk, sent to him. It is submitted that the offence being highly anti -social and likely to raise an emotional prejudice in the mind of the Court, not only scrutiny of the oral evidence of the prosecution with caution is necessary, but it must also be seen that the certificate has been issued by the Director strictly in accordance with law. Mr. Gandhi has drawn my attention to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in Public Prosecutor v. Meenakshi Achi and Anr. : (1968) 2 M.L.J. 520. It was a case of the use of a prohibitive dye in the preparation of ice -cream. The report of the Public Analyst was to the effect that the sample of ice -cream contained coal tar dye, which was not permitted and beyond this bald statement no particulars were given in the report which could enable the Court to decide how the dye was a prohibited one. The report did not even state the colour of the coal tar dye used in the ice -cream and it was the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory which mentioned the shade of that dye. The accused was acquitted by the trial Court and on appeal by the State it was observed by the High Court that the report of the Public Analyst should have contained factual data of the analysis to enable the Court to decide whether the article of food was adulterated or not and that a vague opinion could give no assistance to the Court in deciding whether the dye used was really a prohibited one. The certificate of the Director also did not show that the analysis had been done by him personally. The learned Judge relying on Sub -section (2) of Section 13 of the Act and the form prescribed under the rules held that it was necessary that the analysis be done personally by the Director of Central Food Laboratory. Sub -section (2) of Section 13 is in the following terms: