A.S. Bains, J. - (1.) The petitioner was convicted and sentenced under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000.00, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for six months, by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bahadurgarh. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence of the petitioner to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000.00, in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months. He has challenged his conviction and sentence by way of this revision.
(2.) A sample of Boondi' was taken by the Food Inspector from the petitioner which, on analysis, was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst is Exhibit P.D. The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court relied upon the evidence of Abha Ram Mehra, Food Inspector, P.W. 1, and Dr. N.K. Ahuja, P.W.2, although no reliance was placed on the statement of Kashmiri Lal P.W. 3. Both the afore-mentioned witnesses had no animus against the petitioner and they have fully supported the prosecution version. Both the Courts below have relied upon the evidence of these witnesses.
(3.) It was urged by the counsel for the petitioner that the Public Analyst has not given the type of the yellow coal tar dye and in the absence of a specific opinion of the Public Analyst, the conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained. Reliance is placed on Mool Chand Vs. The State of Haryana, 1976 (I) FAC 239 , wherein it was observed as under:- "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 dyes or not.";