THOMAS - (1.) WHEN we dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 5-11-1998 we also said that reasons of such dismissal will follow. Accordingly we state our reasons here- under :
(2.) SPECIAL leave petition has been filed by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation against an order of a single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta quashing a prosecution proceeding pending against the respondent for offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the Act"). The aforesaid proceedings were initiated in the following background :- On 19-7-1989 a Food Inspector of the Corporation of Calcutta took sample of compounded Asafoetida from the shop of the respondent. When one of the parts of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Calcutta it was analysed and found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the standard prescribed for that food article and hence report was forwarded to the Local Health Authority. A complaint was thereafter filed against the respondent before the Magistrate Court concerned for the aforesaid offence. When respondent entered appearance he made an application to the Court for sending one of the remaining part of the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory and the Court despatched it as prayed for. The Director of Central Food Laboratory sent a Certificate to the Court specifying the result of the analysis to the effect that the food article contained in the sample conforms to the standard prescribed for compounded Asafoetida. Respondent thereupon moved the trial Court for discharging him from prosecution, but the learned Magistrate declined to do so on the premise that "the certificate of analysis issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory was not complete as results of certain tests were not indicated therein." Respondent then moved the High Court in revision challenging the aforesaid order of the Magistrate. Learned single Judge of the High Court upheld the contentions of the respondents and quashed the prosecution proceedings. Report of the Public Analyst contains the following particulars : JUDGEMENT_400_2_1999Html1.htm And I am of opinion that the sample of compound Asafoetida does not conform to the standard in respect of Alcoholic Extract. Further it contains Colophony resin and Foreign resin. Hence, it is Adulterated. Signed this 17th day of August, 1989."
(3.) THE Certificate of Central Food Laboratory contains the following facts : Certified that the sample . . . . . was in a condition fit for analysis and has/have been tested analysed and that the result/results of such tests analysis are stated below : Total Ash %-0.66 Ash Insoluble in dil. HCL %-0.04 Alcoholic extract (with 90% alcohol) %-5.50 Test for Colophony-Negative Test for colour-Coal tar dye absent Boric acid test-Positive And I am of the opinion that the sample conforms to the standards of compounded Asafoetida as per P. F. A. Rules, 1955." The standard of quality of compound Asafoetida is specified in Item No. A. 04 of Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 which is extracted below : "It shall not contain - (a) colophony resin, (b) galbanum resin, (c) ammoniaccum resin, (d) any other foreign resin, (e) coal tar dyes, (f) mineral pigment, (g) more than 10 per cent total ash content, (h) more than 1.5 per cent ash insoluble in dilute hydrochloric acid, (i) less than 5 per cent alcoholic extract, (with 90 per cent of alcohol) as estimated by the U. S. P. 1936 method." ;