AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J. S. Sekhon, J.
On 28th of August, 1985, Sh. Manohar Lai,. Govern went Food Inspector (PW1) alongwith Dr. J. Chandra (PW3) went to the sweet meat shop of Rattan Lal, accused respondent located in Safidon and purchased 600 grams of bundi as sample from the bulk of bundi weighing 10 Kgs. exhibited for sale. The sample was divided and transferred in three clean and dry bottles, which were properly stoppered and sealed. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst, who vide his report, Exhibit PD found it to be adulterated due to the presence of unpermitted metanil yellow acid coaltar dye. On receipt of report, a complaint for offence under section 7(1) punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was filed against the accused.
The trial Court after recording evidence and recording the statement of the accused, however, ultimately acquitted him on the technical ground as the report of the Public Analyst did not contain any reasons for coming to the conclusion, as to how the presence of unpermitted metanil yellow acid coaltardye was detected, Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of a Single Bench of this Court in Ravinder Kumar v. The State of Haryana, (1986 1) Vol 89 PLR 679.
Feeling aggrieved against the above referred order of acquittal, the State has come up in appeal. Leave to appeal was granted by the Division Benchof this court on 4.1.1988 and the appeal was admitted.
Mr. J.C. Sethi, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, contends that the observations of the Single Bench of this Court in Ravinder Kumar''s case (supra) are not attracted to the fact''s of the case in hand, as the report of the Public Analyst in this case revealed the presence of" unpermitted metanil yellow acid coaltardye.
Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, maintains that the above referred judgment of the Single Bench in Ravinder Kumar''s base (supra) in turn is based upon the judgment of the Single Beach, in Maya Ram v. The State of Punjab, 1987(II) FAC 310. In that case, this Court has held that paper chromatography test was not sufficient to detect the presence of unpermitted coaltardye. Thus, he maintains that the judgment of acquittal of the trial Court was wellfounded,
In the case in hand, the operative part of the report, Exhibit PD, of the Public Analyst reads as under
xxx xxx x xx
I further certify that I have caused to be analysed the aforementioned sample and declare the result of analysis to be is follows :
Wool double dyeing test : Positive
Aciddye : Present
Basicdye : Absent
Test for colour by paper chromatography : Unpermitted metanil yellow acid coaltardye dye.
Test for metanil yellow : Positive
And am of the opinion that the sample is coloured with unpermitted metanil yellow acid coalter dye.
Signed this 19th day of Sept., 1985.
xxx xxx, Sd/.
A bare perusal of the above report reveals that the Public Analyst had only applied the paper chromatography test for concluding that the sample contained, unpermitted metanil yellow acid coaltardye. The report, is of any indication whether any other test was conducted. The Single Bench of this Court in Maya Ram''s case, in para 4 of the judgment, had commented upon the paper chromatography test as under benefit.
"The second test pertaining to colouring matter has been, done by resorting to four methods i.e., wool double dyeing method, either acetic acid method, paper chromatographic method and on soluble coaltar dye method. Except for the third method employed, i.e. paperchromatography, the other methods have not brought forward any positive and, categoric result. So far As paper chromatography is concerned the same could not bring forward whether the coaltar dye used was permissible or nonpermissible. The ordinary dictionary meaning of chromatography is that it is a method or separating substances in a mixture which depend on selective absorption, partition between nonmixing solvents, etc., and which present the substances as a chromatogram, such a series of visible bands in a vertical tube. And the word "Chromatic" is meant to pertain to, or consisting of colours. Thus, paper chromatography would reveal that there is present food colouring on coaltar dye. But on that test to conclude that it was permitted or nonpermitted is rather begging the question. No other data is available on the Public Analyst''s report as to how he had come to the conclusion that the coaltar dye was nonpermitted. It has already been noticed that rule 29 permits use of coaltar dye. The Public Analyst should have excluded in his opinion the possibility of all the five permitted coaltar dyes pertaining to red colour. As is plain, no such effort was made. Thus, the report of the Public Analyst cannot be taken as the gospel truth to outweigh normal judicial balancing. If the Courts were to blindly follow the report of the Public Analyst, then to my mind it would be in the nature of abdication of judicial functions. It is to be borne in mind that the Public Analyst is just an expert and his opinion evidence should normally be clear and unambiguous so that it is understandable if not to all, at least a sizeable section of the people who are nonexperts."
The above referred observations clearly indicate that paper chromatography test is not sufficient to conclude whether permitted or nonpermitted coaltar dye had been used. The expert is expected to imbibe reasons for his conclusions but strangely enough in the case in hand the report Exhibit PD of the Public Analyst is not sufficient to conclude that the sample of bundi contained unpermitted metanil yellow acid coaltardye. If that is so, then it cannot be said that the accusedrespondent was found selling adulterated bundi.
Consequently, for the reasons recorded above, it cannot be said that the trial Court had taken a wrong view of the matter. We, therefore find no merit in this appeal against acquittal. It is ordered to be dismissed.