Om Parkash vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu,

On 7th November, 1978, Sh. C. L. Grover, Government Food inspector, Ambala visited the premises of Om Parkash, situated on Railway Road Yamuna Nagar at 2.15 p. m. and found Om Parkash a servant of Janak Raj having four kilograms of coloured `Barfee'' in the shop for sale. He purchased 1500 grams of coloured Barfee, divided the same into three equal parts and sealed it in three clean tins. One of the sample tin was sent to the Public Analyst who reported that the sample was adulterated as it contained unpermitted red coal tar dye. On receipt of the report, a complaint was filed in the Court against Om Parkash and Janak Raj and they were tried for an offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. They were held guilty and were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ each by Sh. P.K. Goel, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri. Against this judgment dated 18th l9th September, 1984 recording their conviction, Om Parkash and Janak Raj filed an appeal. Appeal of Janak Raj was accepted by the Learned Sessions Judge. Ambala vide his judgment dated 18th May, 1985 and he was acquitted. Conviction of Om Parkash was maintained, but sentence of fine imposed upon him was reduced to Rs. 1000/. It is against this judgment that Om Parkash has filed the present revision petition.

The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, no offence was made out against the petitioner and his conviction could not be sustained. A reference was made to the report of the Public Analyst Ex. PD wherein be mentioned that the sample contained unpermitted red coal tar dye and as such, was unsuitable for human consumption. He had not given as to what type of coal tar dye he actually found in the sample. This contention on behalf of the petitioner is quite valid and the petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt on this simple ground. According to rules 28 and 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955, use of red coaltar dye is permissible which included red coal tar dye of the name of Carmosine, Fast Red E, Amaranth, Erythrosine and Tartrazine. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the Public Analyst to have said what type of coal tar dyewas found in the sample. Similar view was expressed in the case State of Rajasthan Versus Talsa Ram, 1977(2), Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 82.

In the case of Puran Chand Versus State of Panjab a yellow coaltar dye was used for the preparation of sweets and the Public Analyst mentioned that the use of coaltar dye was prohibited but name of that coaltar dye was not given. On this short ground, the revision petition was allowed. It is correct that the report of the Public Analyst is admissible in evidence and it is not necessary to examine him in the Court but it is desirable for the Public Analyst to indicate in his report the tests he had applied and also to give sufficient data from which the Court may come to the conclusion, that the article is adulterated or not. In the instant case, the Public Analyst was not examined to give details on the basis of which he came to the conclusion that coaltar dye was nonpermitted and as such the article of food was not fit for human consumption. In the absence of this evidence, conviction of the petitioner cannot be maintained.

As a result of above discussion, I accept the revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence of the accusedpetitioner and acquit him of the offence with which he was charged. His bail bond is discharged.