Shashi Mehta vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.

The petitioner Shashi Mehta has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act) by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur has upheld his conviction and sentence. He has now come up in revision.

The prosecution case is that on 14th May 1982, Food Inspector Sh. H.S. Saini purchased a sample of milk from the petitioner, who was then present in his shop at Talwara. The sample was divided into 3 equal parts and each part was put in a dry clean bottle after adding the preservative to it. One sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, who found the same to the adultered vide the report, Exhibit PE. As stated earlier the learned Judicial magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner.

I have perused the record carefully and heard the learned counsel for the parties. Upon perusal of the record I am of the view that there was no compliance by the Food Inspector with the mandatory provisions contained in rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1958 (for short the Rules). Rule 18 of the Rules provides a safeguard to the accused against tempering of the sample taken from him during the course of its transmission to the Public Analyst. It lays down that a copy of the memorandum and a specimen of the seal used to seal the sample shall be sent to the Public Analyst separately either by registered post or delivered to him or to any person authorised by him. This rule must be complied with in order to ensure that the Public Analyst analysed the same sample which was taken by the Inspector from the accused. In the instant case, it is not clear from the statement of Karnail Singh, PW3, who was then working as a clerk in the office of the Local Health Authority, Hoshiarpur, that a copy of the memorandum and the specimen impression were separately sent to the Public Analyst.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently argued before me that rule 18 of the rules has been complied with in this case because the Public Analyst clearly mentioned in his report that the sample of the milk sent to him for analysis was properly sealed and fastened and he found the seal in tact and the seal contained on the container of the sample talied with specimen impression of the seal separately sent to the Public Analyst and the sample was found in a fit condition for analysis. According to the learned counsel for the State this observation made in the report by the Public Analyst should be treated as conclusive evidence of the fact that the specimen impression of the seal was separately sent by the Food Inspector in compliance with the provisions of rule 18 of Rules. There is no substance in this contention because these observations were not by the Public Analyst in his own hand. The recitals "the seals fixed on the container of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector" are printed in the form No. III which is the report of the Public Analyst and it appears that the Public Analyst signed the report including these printed recitals mechanically because the Food Inspector admittedly did not send the specimen impression of the seal separately to him. The prosecution has led no other evidence to show that the specimen impression of the seal was sent separately by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst. In this state of affairs, the prosecution case cannot be said to have been proved to the hilt against the petitioner because non compliance with the previsions of the rule 18 of the Rules tells heavily upon the evidentiary value of the report of the Public Analyst and no conviction can safely be based on such evidence.

I, therefore, accept this revision petition filed by Shashi Mehta, set aside his conviction and sentence under section 7 as read with section 16 of the Act and acquit him of the said charge. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner.