Ram Parkash vs The State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.—On a complaint filed by Dr. Sudesh Gulati, Food-Inspector against Ram Parkash u/s 7 read with section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the accused was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jullundur and was sentenced to one year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/. Against the order of his conviction and sentence dated June 14. 1079, Ram Parkash preferred an anneal. The anneal was dismissed on August 21, 1979 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jullundur. Feeling aggrieved, he has now come up in revision.

The facts giving rise to the revision are that on July 15, 1975 Dr. Sudesh Gulati Food Inspector, visited the shop of the petitioner and purchased 450 grams of chillies powder from him for the purpose of analysis. The chillies powder so purchased was divided into three parts, each one of which was sealed in a separate dry bottle. One of the samples was given to the petitioner and another one was sent to the Public Analyst. The sample sent to the Public Analyst was analysed by him and be found the same insect infested.

Mr. Laxmi Grover appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that in view of the facts and the circumstances of the case, there is nothing unlikely in the article of food purchased having been got infested with insects after it was purchased and prior to its analysis by the Public Analyst. Chillies Power was purchased on July 15, 1975 while the certificate. Exhibit P.C. issued by the Public Analyst is dated August 9, 1975. The sample was taken in the month of July and the certificate was issued in August. In Punjab both these months fall in rainy season. The atmosphere is full of humidity during the rainy season. With the presence of the humidity in the atmosphere, the bottles in which the sample was taken must have contained certain amount of moisture. In that season, articles of food when remained lying for good many days get infested with small insects.

The certificate drawn up by the Public Analyst bears the date of August 9, 1975. Under rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, it is obligatory upon the Public Analyst that after the analysis has been completed he has to issue the certificate incorporating the result of the analysis. Similarly it is laid down in rule 4(5) of the aforesaid Rules that after the test or analysis certificate has to be supplied forthwith to the authority sending the sample for analysis. These two rules provide for imperative obligation upon the Public Analysit to issue the certificate immediately after the sample article of food sent to him has been analysed. Certificate, Exhibit P.C. itself does not mention the actual date on which the sample was analysed in the laboratory. It only states that the sample was received in office of the Public Analyst on 15th July, 1975 and the certificate was drawn up on August 9, 3975. Taking into consideration Rules 7(3) and 4(5) of the aforesaid Rules which enjoin upon the Public Analist to prepare certificate without any loss of time after the sample has been anaylsed, there cannot be any inordinately long interval of the time between the date of certificate and the date of its analysis. It has to be presumed as prescribed by the abovesaid Rules, that the sample lad been analysed and the certificate had been issued on the date borne on the certificate or it had been analysed, a the earliest, on the day preceding the date of the certificate. Thus the sample remained unexamined and unanalysed for about 25 days. There is nothing unlikely in the sample having been infested with insects during that period. Dr. Gulati, Food Inspector, admitted that at the time he purchased the sample, it was not infested with insects This admission by the Food Inspector re-inforces the argument of the Learned Counsel that the sample got infested with insects later and was not infested at the time, when it was purchased.

If the sample was infested with insects after it was taken, the petitioner could not be held guilty of selling adulterated article or food infested with insects. The facts and circumstances of the case cannot eliminate the possibility of chillies powder recovered having been infested with insects after it was purchased by the Food Inspector.

For the reasons recorded above, this revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of charge. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him.