M.M. Punchhi, J. - (1.) The petitioner, Sweet-meat seller, was in the net of the Food Inspector for he had displayed for sale the Barfi which contained a colouring agent. The sample purchased from him by the Food Inspector, when sent to the Public Analyst, brought forward the following analysis:- "I further certify that I have caused to be analysed the after mentioned sample and declare the result of my analysis to be as follows:- 1. Microscopic 16.4.79:- White and pink coloured barfi free from extraneous matter and fungus growth. 2. Colouring matter:- (i) wool double dyeing test:- Negative in acid bath but positive in basic bath. (ii) Ether acetic acid test:- Positive. (iii) Paper Chromatography:- A red non. Permitted basic coal tar dye found present. (iv) Tests for oil soluble coal tar dyes:- Negative. and am of the opinion that the contents of the sample contain a red non-permitted basic coal tar dye."
(2.) The said report of the Public Analyst is the basis of the conviction of the petitioner as sustained by the courts below.
(3.) The main point for consideration in this revision petition is whether the said report satisfies the conscience of the Court that the coal tar dye (food colouring) was a non-permitted one.;