Ghansham Dass vs State of Haryana and anr.

G.S. Chahal, J. (Oral)

Ghansham Dasspetitioner by means of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashing of the complaint dated 2nd August, 1984Annexur P 1 and the charge dated 2691985Annexure P2, and the consequent proceedings.

According to the averments made in the complaint Annexure P1, the Food Inspector visited the shop of the petitioner on 9th June, 1984 and found him in possession of three kilograms of Haldi powder for sale. After serving notice in form VT, he purchased 600 grams of haldi powder as sample, which was divided into three equal parts and were sealed. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst, who certified on microscopic examination that the sample contained rice husk and rice starch. It also contained unpermitted metanil yellow coaltar dye and as such the petitioner was in possession of adulterated food.

According to the report of the Public Analyst on its test for colour by paper chromatography added unpermitted metanil yellow coaltar dye was detected.

Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has urged that the chromatography test is not a sure test and the Public Analyst has not confirmed and ruled out the presence of any of the other colours. In support of his arguments he relied upon the observations of M. M. Punchhi, J. in Maya Ram v. The State of Punjab, 1987(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 320, which reads as under :

"..........So far as paper chromatography is concerned, the same could not bring forward whether the coaltar dye used was permissible. The ordinary dictionary meaning of chromatography is that it is a method of separating substances in a mixture which depend on selective absorption, partition between non mixing solvents, etc., and which present the substances as a chromatogram, such as a series of visible bands in a vertical tube. And the word ''Chromatic'' is meant to pertain to, or consisting of colours. Thus, paper chromatography would reveal that there is present food colouring on coaltar dye. But on that test to conclude that it was permitted or nonpermitted is rather begging the question. No other data is available on the Public Analyst''s report as to how he had come to the conclusion that the coaltar dye was nonpermitted, it has already been noticed that rule 18 permits use or coaltar dye. The Public Analyst should have excluded in his opinion the possibility of all the five permitted coal tar dyes pertaining to red colour. As is plain, no such effort was made. Thus, the report of the Public Analyst cannot be taken as the gospel truth to out weigh normal judicial balancing if the courts were to blindly fallow the report of the Public Analyst, then to my mind it would be in the nature of abdication of judicial functions. It is to be borne in mind a that the Public Analyst is just an expert and his opinion evidence should normally be clear and unambiguous so that it is understandable, it not to all, at least a sizable section of the people who are nonexperts."

I accept the arguments of the learned counsel and conclude that the prosecution of the petitioner on the basis of such report cannot end in conviction and the continuation of the same shall be abuse of proceess of the Court. 1, hereby, allow this petition and quash the complaint dated 281984 (Annexure P1) and consequent proceedings.