Rattan Lal vs The State

C.G. Suri, J.—Rattan Lal, aged 45 years, a Kuryana merchant of Amritsar, has filed this revision petition against his conviction and sentence u/s 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter briefly referred to as ''the Act'') awarded by the trial Magistrate and affirmed on appeal by the Court of Session.

The Food Inspector had taken a sample of powdered turmeric (haldi) from the appellant''s shop after complying with the prescribed formalities on 30th November, 1970. The public analyst reported, inter-alia, vide his report Exhibit PF, dated 8th December, 1970 that the sample of haldi contained lead chromate and was, as such, adulterated. The report is silent with regard to the presence of any Tepioca starch.

The Municipal Committee, Amritsar, filed this complaint against the petitioner on 29th December, 1970. A charge was framed by the trial Magistrate on the basis of the Public Analyst''s report, Exhibit PF. It is not apparent from the record why the Municipal Committee found it necessary thereafter to make an application u/s 13 (2) of the Act for the sample in their possession being forwarded to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for analysis and report when the Public Analyst had already made a report in their favour. The application was granted by the Magistrate and the Director''s report. Exhibit CI, dated 12th April, 1971 was received in due course. According to sub-sections (3) and (5) of section 13 of the Act, this report Is final and conclusive and supersedes the Public Analyst''s report The Director''s report is to the effect that the test for chromate was negative and that Tapioca Starch was present in the sample of turmeric received In his office in a sealed container. The turmeric was reported to be adulterated because of the presence of Tapioca Starch.

The two reports were so inconsistent and contradictory that they may seem to lend support to the petitioner''s argument that the samples tested respectively by the Public Analyst and the Director could not have originated from the same source The petitioner had, therefore, made an application dated 3rd May, 1971 for the sample in his possession being sent to the Director for analysis and report. The Food Inspector had also made an application for the charge being amended in conformity with the Director''s report. Both these applications were disposed of by the trial Magistrate by separate orders on 24th May, 1971. The petitioner''s application u/s 13 (2) was rejected while the Food Inspector''s application for amendment of the charge was accepted and the charge was consequently amended.

Shri Tarlok Nath Bhalla, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that there is no satisfactory proof en record with regard to the sample in the complainant''s possession having remained intact while it was kept in storage in the Municipal office or was in transit at different stages. The Director''s report is final and conclusive only on the point that the sample reached his office with seals intact and that the various tests mentioned therein were duly carried out and that the conclusions drawn were correct. This report is no guarantee of the safe storage and transit of the sample while it was in the custody of the complainant. The conflicting reports, Exhibits PF and CI, may, on the other hand, show that the two samples had different origins. The turning down of the petitioner''s application u/s 13 (2) of the Act for the sample in his possession being sent to the Director, was therefore, an unjustified denial of an opportunity to prove his innocence. Shri Bhalla has relied on a Single Bench decision of this Court in Sabu Ram v. The State of Punjab, (1970) 72 LRP 601 Reference could also be made to the Supreme Court decision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, (1937) 69 PLR 300 in this connection.

Shri Bhalla also relies on Pritam Dass v. The State (1966) 68 PLR 21 SN, in support of his argument that the divergence in the reports of the public Analyst and the Director can be taken advantage of by the accused. Shri Mamrjohan Krishan Mahajan, who appears before me for the respondent State of Punjab in the present case, has pointed out that the correctness of the unreported decision on which Pritam Dass''s case (supra) was based, had been doubted by a Division Bench of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Niranjan Kumar (1965) 67 PLR 941. All that the Division Bench has said is that the finality and conclusiveness of the Director''s report is only to the extent that the sample as received in his office contained what the report disclosed As already said above, the Director''s report cannot be final or conclusive with regard to the safe keeping of samples during storage and transit while they were in the complainant''s possession

Shri Mahajan then suggested that the sample in petitioner''s possession could still be sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis and report. The petitioner has been under suspense and agony for more than three years. It would not be desirable to prolong the proceedings any further.

The petitioner is, therefore, given the benefit of doubt and his conviction and sentence are set aside. The revision petition is accepted and he is hereby acquitted.