S.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) THE essential requisites of the report of the Public Analyst and the probative value to be attached thereto, is the primary question which arises for determination in this appeal directed against the acquittal of the respondent under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
(2.) THE facts are not in dispute and a brief reference thereto would suffice. Ram Parkash, Food Inspector of the Municipal Committee of Amritsar after complying with the requisite formalities purchased a sample of 1500 grams of Ladoos from the shop of Dheru Ram respondent. This was done in the presence of P.W. 2 Hakim Dewan Chand and P.W. 3 Dr. Ved Kumar Sharma. In conformity with the requirements of the law and rules the ladoos were divided into three equal parts and sealed in three clean and dry bottles, of which one was duly delivered to the respondent. The report of the Public Analyst in respect of the above -said sample declared that a yellow prohibited coal tar dye had been used in the preparation of the Ladoos. In the prosecution that followed, Ram Parkash Food Inspector, Hakim Dewan Chand and Dr. Ved Kumar Sharma. consistently supported the case for the prosecution. Apparently on the request of the respondent, Shri R.N. Beri, the Public Analyst who had prepared the report Exhibit P.F. was called as a witness and duly examined in Court. Subsequently in order to clarify certain alleged obscurities in his statement he was recalled as a Court witness and further questioned. The respondent in his statement under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, did not seriously dispute either the presence of the prosecution witnesses or the fact of the taking into possession of the sample, though it was alleged that it was done under threat of immediate arrest. He further admitted that one of the sample bottles was left with him by the Food Inspector but stated that no money was paid to him. He alleged that his prosecution was due to a misconception and took up a plea that he had told the Inspector that the Ladoos were not for sale but were prepared for one Kartar Chand. A positive plea taken by him in this context was that one Kartar Chand had brought his own material etc., and he had prepared the Ladoos for and on his behalf only and had charged merely for his labour. It was pleaded that no article was put by the respondent himself in the preparation of the said Ladoos.
(3.) THE trial Court accepted the prosecution evidence regarding the taking of the sample which in fact was hardly disputed. Rejecting an argument on that score it held that the evidence of the Food Inspector was free from blemish and the two witnesses examined in support thereof were independent and in no way under his influence. On a detailed consideration of the defence evidence and the plea of the respondent, the Court rejected the counter -version and held that no reliance could be placed on the same. It further took the view that the respondent was a seller of sweets and the presumption that the sweets in his possession were for sale could fairly arise in his case.;