P.N.Bakshi, J. - (1.) THE applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 of the P. F. Act and sentenced to 6 months' Rl and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Allahabad. Hence this revision.
(2.) A sample of Jeera was purchased by the Food Inspector from the applicant's Grocery Shop which on analysis by the public analyst was found to be adulterated. The report of the Public Analyst was relied upon by the courts below in upholding the conviction of the accused, apart from the other evidence on record. The report of the Public Analyst was as follows :- (1) Organic extraneous matter 13.6 per cent, (2) Foreign edible seeds 0.1 per cent, (3) Jeera 86.3 per cent. In the opinion of the Public Analyst the organic extraneous matter exceeds the maximum permissible limit of 5 per cent. The applicant's counsel has contended that the report of the Public Analyst indicated that he had caused the sample to be analysed of which the result was given by him in Form-3. The person, who actually analysed the sample in the laboratory of the Public Analyst was not produced in evidence to prove the report. He has, thus, argued that the report of the Public Analyst is inadmissible in evidence. Section 13 (5) of the Food Adulteration Act reads as follows :- "Any document purporting to be a report signed by a Public Analyst, unless it has been superseded under sub-section (3), or any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceeding under this Act, or under sections 272 to 276 of the Indian Penal Code. It is obvious from a perusal of the above section that the report of the Public Analyst is admissible in evidence!. If the applicant is not satisfied with the report, it is open to him to apply to the: court for summoning the Public Analyst. In the alternative, the applicant has also a right under the Act to have his own sample sent for analysis to the Director Central Food Laboratory. None of these remedies open to the applicant were availed of by him. The report of the Public Analyst has been endorsed by the counsel for the accused. It has been duly exhibited and marked Ex. Kha 1. No objection was taken to its admissibility at any stage of the proceedings before the trial court. Having regard to all the circumstances I am of the opinion that the said report was admissible in evidence and it was not necessary to lead evidence in formal proof of the said document. It could be read in evidence in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. A subsidiary argument has also been raised by the applicant's counsel that the report indicates that the organic extraneous matter exceeded the maximum permissible limit of 5 per cent, but a perusal of serial No. A.05.09 of Appendix B of the P. F. Act indicates that the proportion of extraneous matter shall not exceed 7 per cent by weight. In other words the argument is that the report is incorrect and the analysing authority has not applied its mind properly. Here again I do not agree with this submission for the simple reason that the organic extraneous matter as disclosed in the analysis is 13.6 per cent which is not permissible. If there is some error in the noting the permissible limit in the report, that has not in any way prejudiced the applicant and no interference is called for on this ground. So far as the analysis of the Safed Jeera in question is concerned details of the same have been given as mentioned above. If the applicant desired to challenge the details of the analysis, he had two remedies open to him as I have indicated above, but none of them were availed of by him. In these circumstances not much importance can be attached to this slight error, if any, the report for the purpose of reversing the findings recorded by the courts below.
(3.) FOR the reasons given above, I do cot find any merit in this revision, which is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.;