A.S Bains, J. - (1.) The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barnala, under Sec. 16(I)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further four months rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, his conviction and sentence were maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala. Hence this revision petition.
(2.) Mr. P.K. Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner, says that the present case is covered by an authority of this Court reported as 1976 (I) FAC 239 (Mool Chand Vs. State of Haryana) . The Public Analyst has not given the particulars of the prohibited dye (yellow coaltar dye) found in the sample of sweet. In Mool Chand's case (supra), the Public Analyst had not given the name of the yellow coaltar dye and it was held by Gurnam Singh, J. as under: "It has been conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the Public Analyst has not given the name of the prohibited yellow coaltar dye found in the sample. According to rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, permitted coaltar dyes can be used in sweets. The permitted yellow coal-tar dyes are Tartrazine and Sunset Yellow FCF. The report of the Public Analyst is an evidence in the case and is itself sufficient for convicting the accused. Therefore, the report of the Public Analyst must be supported by a clear statement of what he noticed and on what grounds he based his opinion. He should also give all the materials which induced him to come to his conclusion so that the court may form its own judgment on these materials. In the instant case the Public Analyst simply said that the sample was coloured with a prohibited yellow coal-tar dye. He has not cared to find out as to which that prohibited yellow coal tar dye was. Since two types of yellow coal tar dyes can be used in sweets so it is difficult to say as to whether the sample taken from the petitioner contained any of these two kinds of yellow coal tar dye or not."
(3.) The learned State counsel was given time, but he has not brought to the notice of this Court any decision of the Supreme Court or any other High Court taking a contrary view and he conceded that the case is covered by the authority (supra).;