State vs Gunj Lal

D.K. Mahajan, J.—This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Gunj Lal who was tried u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (No. 37 of 1954). The charge against the respondent was that he was selling ground chillies which were highly adulterated with wheat bran. The chillies were thus stated to have become unwholesome food staff. There is no dispute on facts before us. The chillies were purchased by the Inspector from the respondent''s shop and, therefore, there was a sale of the food stuff by the respondent. The chillies were sent by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst for analysis and the report of the analyst is Exhibit P.D., the relevant part of which is set out below :

I further certify that I have analysed the aforementioned sample and declare the result of my analysis to be as follows :

Date of analysis : 19th December, 1958.

Total, Ash. 6.5%

Ash insoluble in 10% Hydrochloric solution-1.5%

Highly adulterated with wheat bran detected under Microscope, and am of the opinion that the same is adulterated highly with wheat bran thereby rendering the sample of food stuff unwholsome.

The learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused on the short ground that the report of the Public Analyst is incomplete as the quantity of the foreign substance, that is, wheat bran, which is present in the sample, has not been mentioned.

It may be mentioned that with regard to the specification of chillies, under rule 5 of the Rules made under the Act, in the definitions and standards of quality in Appendix ''B'' in A.05.10, it is specified that the chillies shall contain-

(a) * * * *

(b) not more than 1.0 per cent foreign organic matter.

(c) not more than 8.0 per cent, total ash,

(d) not more than 1.25 per cent ash insoluble in hydrochloric acid,

(e) * * * *

(f) * * * *

The respondent was charged on the ground that the chillies contained foreign organic matter and thus were rendered unwholesome food stuff. It will be noticed from the relevant part of the specifications that I per cent of foreign organic matter is permissible. The Public Analyst merely examined the sample under the microscope and has stated that the sample was highly adulterated with wheat bran. The percentage of adulteration is not indicated. Thus it is very difficult to say, in the circumstances of this case, that the adulteration by presence of foreign organic matter is more than what is permitted under the rules. In Stall v. Shanti Parkash (1957) 69 P.L.R. 17, a similar report with regard to turmeric was held insufficient to show the extent of adulteration. On the basis of a similar report, the Division Bench refused to convict the accused when the matter was taken before them in an appeal against acquittal. The report of the public analyst in that case read as follows :

It is highly adulterated with extraneous vegetable matter." The report in the present case is in no manner different from the report in Shanti Parkash''s case (supra). Thus the rule in Shanti Parkash''s case (supra) concludes the matter. To the same effect are the observations in Gurbax Rai v. State 2. At this stage, it may also be useful to refer to another decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shri Sat Pal Kapoor (1962) 64 P.L.R. 799. It was held in Sat Pal Kapoor''s case (sic) that-

It is not necessary, in every case, for the public analyst to state the exact quantity of foreign substance present in the sample sent to him. When the foreign substance happens to be one, the presence of which is absolutely prohibited in that particular article of food, it would be unnecessary to state the quantity. But where the foreign substance is not injurious to human health or its presence is not absolutely prohibited, the question of quantity of the foreign substance would be a relevant factor, and if the report of the public analyst does not specify the quantity, it may be treated as an incomplete document.

This decision does not, in any way, affect the ratio of the earlier two decisions, rather it supports the same. In the case of ground chillies, the presence of foreign organic matter is not wholly ruled out and, therefore, it was essential to specify the percentage of the organic matter, particularly when the organic matter is such that it is not injurious to human health.

Mr. Bishambar Dayal. learned counsel for the State, sought to contend that the content of insoluble ash was slightly higher, but that is not the basis on which the public analyst has held the ground chillies to be adulterated. Moreover, the respondent was never tried on that ground. In this situation, this contention does not need any further examination.

For the reasons given above, we see no force in this appeal, the same fails and is dismissed.

Dua, J.

I wish to add a few words to the detailed judgment of my learned brother.

This case is a clear illustration of the casual and irresponsible manner in which the Analyst has performed his duty. Only if he had taken proper pains to scrutinise fully the result of his analysis and to certify all the reasons disclosed by his own analysis for holding the chillies in question to adulterated, the prosecution may perhaps not have failed. The officers entrusted with enforcing the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are expected, in view of the widespread evil of breaches of this law and their serious impact on the society, to discharge their duty with a fuller sense of responsibility so as to help achieve the beneficent object of preventing food adulteration. It is hoped that the authorities concerned would see that lapses of this kind do not recur.

One other factor to which also I must refer is the inordinate delay in the disposal of cases under this Act. In the case in hand, the sample of chillies was obtained on 21st November 1958. It was analysed on 24th December 1958 more than a month later. Prosecution evidence In the case was recorded in March, 1961 and May 1961. The accused was examined u/s 342, Criminal Procedure Code, on 12th June 1961, and on 21st July 1961, he declined to produce evidence in defence. The orders were announced on 31st July 1961; and the present appeal against acquittal was admitted by a Bench of this Court on 4th December 1964 which is being disposed of on 1st April 1964. This inordinate delay in the disposal of criminal cases-particularly under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is an incongruity in our syste n of Government. Speedy and efficient administration of criminal justice is one of the indices from which is broadly measured the quality of a nation''s civilisation. Dictates of true democracy, governed by the Rule of law, demand efficient and prompt disposal of criminal cases. I must also point out that acquittal appeals in this Court deserve to be given a priority because at times the factor of undue time lapse may well defeat the purpose of prosecution.