STATE Vs. TALSA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State directed against the judgment of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sirohi dated 9th June, 1970, by which he acquitted the accused of an offence under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Food Inspector Himat Chand Bhandari P.W.I. checked the shop of accused Talsa Ram and purchased a sample of 'Laddoo & Jalebi' on 20th Jan., 1967 at 11 P.M. One portion of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst whose report is Ex.P 5. The Public Analyst gave the opinion that the sample was adulterated under clause (J) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the aforesaid Act. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that the testimony of Himmat Chand Bhandari was not corroborated by the motbir Dharam Chand P.W.2 in so far as the taking of sample and sealing thereof was concerned.

(3.) I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was in error in holding that the conviction cannot be recorded on the sole testimony of Himmat Chand Bhandari P.W.I. But upon perusal of the report of the Public Analyst, I however, find that the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. The sample is said to be adulterated because it contained "non permitted un-accountable coallar dye". According to rules 28 and 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, certain types or coaltar dye are permitted to be used for preparing of confectionary and sweets. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the Public Analyst to have said what type of coaltar dye he actually found in the sample. As a matter of fact the coaltar dye found in the sample was described by the Public Analyst as "un-accountable". The report therefore is obviously vague and acquittal of the respondent can be sustained on this ground. The report of the Public Analyst suffers from one more defect. The Public Analyst should have separately analysed "Laddoo & Jalebi". By mixing up of the two, it has become very difficult for this court to find out which of the two sample was actually adulterated.