The State of Punjab vs Gulshan Rai

A.L. Behari, J.—State has come up in appeal against the order of acquittal of Gulshan Rai recorded by Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Barnala, on Nov. 26, 1982 of charge framed u/s 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called ''the Act'').

On June 12, 1981, Dr. P.K. Goel visited the premises of Gulshan Rai Halwai who was having about 20 Kgs. of laddoos meant for sale. After necessary formalities having been complied with, sample of laddoos was taken into possession. After receipt of the report of the Public Analyst that the laddoos were prepared in palm oil which was not up to the prescribed standard, Complaint was filed against Gulshan Rai. During the course of the trial second sample of laddoos was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. On receipt of the report charge was amended.

The prosecution produced P.W. 1 Dr. P.K. Goel, P.W. 2 Suresh Kumar, Clerk from the Office of the Chief Medical Officer, Sangrur, and P.W. 3 Anup Kumar Kad, Medical Officer, Narike. Exhibit PF, report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, was tendered. Gulshan Rai accused while denying allegations admitted that second sample was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, and showed ignorance about the report. No evidence in defence was produced. As stated above, the accused was acquitted.

Shri S.K. Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab, has referred to the reports of the Public Analyst as well as that of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Exhibits PD and PF, respectively and has argued that the palm oil which was used by the accused in preparation of the sweetmeat laddoos was not up to the standards prescribed and conviction of the accused be recorded. Section 2(ia)(m) reads as under:--

"if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability but which does not render it injurious to health:

Provided that, where the quality or purity of the article, being primary food, has fallen below the prescribed standards or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability, in either case, solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency, then, such article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this sub-clause.

Explanation:-- Where two or more articles of primary food are mixed together and the resultant article of food :-

(a) is stored, sold or distributed under a name which denotes the ingredients thereof; and

(b) is not injurious to health, then, such resultant article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this clause."

Violation of the aforesaid provision of course, would be an offence punishable u/s 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. At the outset it may be stated that in the report Exhibit PF the Director, Central Food Laboratory, has not reported that the article was injurious to health on account of use of any adulterant such as coal-tar die or presence of any foreign body.

In the complaint filed it was stated that the medium used in the preparation of laddoos was palm oil. This was so stated as the report of the Public Analyst had indicated so who further had reported that the medium used was not up to the standard prescribed for palm oil. Subsequently when the second sample was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, he did not report as to what type of medium was used in preparation of the laddoos. This was not indicated on the lables attached to the sample. However, he reported that the medium used was not in conformity with the standard prescribed under the rules for vanaspati as well as for palm oil. Rule A.19 of the Rules prescribes standard for vanaspati and Rule A. 17.19 prescribes the standard for the palm oil. There is no standard prescribed for laddoos. The question for consideration is as to whether on the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Exhibit PF, conviction of the accused can be recorded? None of the witnesses who appeared in Court on behalf of the prosecution stated that the medium used in preparation of the laddoos was palm oil or vanaspati. When the statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was not put to him that the medium used by him for preparation of the laddoos was palm oil. The report of the Public Anylist is superseded by the report of the Director Central Food Laboratory. There is no evidence, as stated above, that the accused used palm oil. Till it is so proved by cogent evidence, he could not be convicted. It was not for the accused to come forward with any explanation that he had prepared the laddoos in a particular medium to escape punishment. Rather it was for the prosecution to establish that he had prepared the laddoos in the medium which was not up to the prescribed standard. In the present case the prosecution has failed beyond reasonable doubt to do so.

As already stated above, what were purchased by the Food Inspector were laddoos for which no standard is prescribed under the Act or the Rules. The Food Inspector did not purchase any sample of the medium used for preparation of the laddoos. Since no standard was prescribed by the laddoos, as stated above, and the same were not found to be unfit for human consumption, the accused could not be convicted under the Act.

Reference may be made to the decision of J.B. Garg, J. in Subhash Chander v. State of Haryana 1990 (2) FAC 127, which was a case of purchase of namkeen Bhujia. The report of the Public Analyst related to the medium used in the preparation of Bhujia i.e. mustard oil which was not up to the standard prescribed. It was held that for sale of namkeen bhujia for which no standard was prescribed, conviction could not be made.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is dismissed.