State of Punjab vs Prem Chand

A.L. Bahri, J.—Prem Chand was acquitted by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla on April 17, 1982 in a case under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, on the ground that the sample of Gajarpak purchased from him on analysis did not show use of any prohibited coal tar dye. The Judicial Magistrate relied upon the decision of this Court in Mool Chand v. State of Haryana 1976 C.L.J. (Crl.) 70, while referring to the provisions of the Rules 28 and 29 of the Rules which permitted and prohibited use of coal tar dye in preparation of sweets, it was observed that it was the duty of the Public Analyst to specify on analysis what type of coal tar dye was used and that the same was not permitted, in order to bring the case under the four-corner of the statute. The State has come up in appeal against the aforesaid order of acquittal.

After hearing counsel for the parties, we do not find that the view taken by the Magistrate is erroneous in any manner. Rule 28 of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act prescribes different coal tar dyes which can be used in the preparation of the sweets relating to four colours namely, red, yellow, blue and green as mentioned therein. One of them is Sunset Yellow FCF. In the present case report of the Public Analyst is Exhibit P.D. It mentions that on microcopies examination the colour of the sample was reddish yellow. The colouring matter shown in 2 (iii) a is as under:

Paper Chromatography:--A yellow non-permitted acid coal tar dye found present.

On the aforesaid analysis the Public Analyst gave the opinion that the contents of the sample were a yellow non-permitted acid coal tai dye. The Rules show that some colour dye can be used in preparing sweets. Use of permitted coal tar in any food other than those enumerated in Rule 29 is prohibited. Rule 29 of the Rules allows use of permitted coal tar dye in the sweets as mentioned in Item(e). The report of the Public Analyst does not show that the coal tar dye used was not one of the permitted coal tars. It was expected of the Public Analyst to state which type of coal tar dye was used in the sample and then to further opine as to whether the same was permitted or prohibited. Similar view was taken by this Court in Rajinder Kumar v. State of Karyana 1990 (1) RCR 227. In view of the position of law as stated above there is no scope for interference with the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate. This appeal is dismissed.