Sadhu Ram vs State of Haryana

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The point of law referred for our oppinion lies within a narrow compass. It pertains to the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') The question posed being :-

''''Whether the particulars of adulterated foodstuff, as found by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, are required to be incorporated in the complaint filed by the Food Inspector initially on the basis of report of the Public Analyst which stands superseded by the report of the Director Central Food Laboratory."

Read by itself, in the context of the relevant provisions of the Act, the short and simple answer must be that no occasion is provided for the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory to be incorporated in the complaint as originally filed by the Food Inspector founded upon the opinion of the Public Analyst, as in terms of Section 13 of the Act, the stage for seeking a report from the Director, Central Food Laboratory is subsequent to the filing of such complaint.

It appears, however, that the point in issue emerged from a situation where adulteration in the sample of the article of food in question, as found by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, was different in nature from that as per the report of the Public Analyst. As the report of the Director Central Food Laboratory suprsedes that of the Public Analyst, It followed that if the prosecution of the person from whom the sample had been taken is to be launched on the basis of the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, then such report must form part of the complaint of the local Health Authority and this may be done either by amending the original complaint to incorporate there in the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory or by the withdrawal of the original complaint and the filing of fresh complaint based upon such report of the Director, Central Food Laboratary. Whether such second, complaint would attract the bar of double jeopardy in terms of Article 23 of the Constitution of India or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, would, of course, be a matter to be decided on particular facts and circumstances of the case.

Further, in dealing with this matter, A. L. Bahri, J. sought reconsideration of the decision of this Court in Ravi Ghai v. State of Punjab 1985 (1) C. L. R.392. A reading of this judgment would however, show that it was founded upon concession made by counsel appearing for the State of Punjab and the decision therein was recorded on that basis. Such a decision cannot be treated as a binding judicial precedent. The matter there concerned a sample of ice-cream. The Public Analyst found that the content of milk-fat was less than the prescribed standard. A contrary finding was, however, recorded in the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, namely, that milk-fat was more than the prescribed standard, but some starch was also found present in the sample and it was on this account that the Magistrate decided to proceed with the trial against the person from whom the sample had been taken. It was in this context that counsel appearing for the State of Punjab conceded that the prosecution of the accused was liable to be quashed as no proceedings could be taken against the accused in respect of the presence of starch in the sample, this not being one of the grounds taken in the complaint filed against him. The complaint was accordingly quashed.

It will be seen, therefore, that no question of law was decided or pronounced upon in Ravi Ghai''s case (Supra) and no occasion thus arises for reconsideration of this judgment.

This reference is answered accordingly. Let the matter now be placed before Single Judge for decision on merits.