R.L.KHURANA,J. - (1.)Respondent Balraj Khosla upon have been tried for the offence under Section 16(l)(a) (i) of the Frevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - vide judgment dated 27.6.91. In default of payment of fine, the respondent was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month. On an appeal having been preferred by the respondent before the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, the conviction and sentence imposed upon him was set - aside and he was acquitted of the offence vide judgment dated 4.3.92.
(2.)Briefly stated, the facts leading to the prosecution of the respondent are these. The Food Inspector Sh. Jagat Ram on 15.3.89 visited the shop of respondent at Subhash Chowk, Dalhousie. He purchased 600 grams of "coco -nut Barfi" from the respondent as sample for the purpose of analysis. The sample so purchased was divided into three parties and put into three neat, clean dry bottles which were labeled, fastened corked and sealed as per the procedure laid down under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. One of the sealed part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Kandaghat, who found the same to be adulterated as it contained "a red basic coal tar dye other than prescribed present and that the use of unauthorized coal tar dyes in an article of food is injurious to health".
(3.)The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent of the offence charged against him on two grounds, namely, the sanction accorded by the Local Health Authority for the prosecution of the respondent was not valid, and. that the report of the Public Analyst was bad and could not be relied upon inasmuch as it did not contain the type/kind of the red coal tar dye used.