HARMOHINDER KAUR SANDHU,J - (1.) ON 14-4-1982 Food Inspector H.R. Khanna along with Dr. B.S. Dahiya and Hardial inspected the premises of Som Parkash confectioner, situated near Railway Station Gurgaon and found him in possession of about 5 kilograms of Bundi Laddoos' of Vanaspati for sale. After serving a notice on Som Parkash petitioner the Food Inspector purchased 1500 grms of 'Bundi Laddoos' by way of sample for analysis. The sample was divided into three equal parts and was packed in three dry and clean packets. The packets were secured and sealed as per rules. One sealed packet of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, who vide his report Ex. PD found it to be adulterated due to the presence of unpermitted yellow (Metanil yellow) coaltar dye. On receipt of report of the Public Analyst a complaint was filed against the petitioner for an offence under Section 7 punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The trial court after recording evidence held the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1030/-. In default of payment of fine he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by this Judgment and order dated 12-6-1985 rendered by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Gurgaon, on 22-9-1986. The petitioner has now filed the present revision petition for setting aside his conviction and sentence.
(2.) I have hear Mr. G.S. Gill, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Gill, Advocate General, Haryana, for the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the present case the second sample was sent for analysis to Central Food Laboratory and the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, also reported that a non-permitted yellow coaltar dye colour identified as metanil yellow was present in the sample. It was urged that conviction of the petitioner was based on this report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad which was not exhibited and moreover, this report did not reveal as to what test was performed to find out that the yellow coal tar dye used for preparation of the food article was metanil yellow which was not permitted. In the absence of any detail regarding test conducted by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, conviction of the petitioner could not be upheld.It was further contended that even as per report of the Public Analyst Ex. PD the only test performed by him was paper chromatography test and this test alone was not sufficient to conclude whether permitted or non-permitted coaltar dye was used. In support of his detention the learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Maya Ram v. The State of Punjab, 1987(2) F.A.C. 320 wherein it was held that paper chromatography test was not sufficient to detect the presence of unpermitted coaltar dye. This authority was relied upon by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Haryana (Government Food Inspector) v. Rattan Lal, 1993(2) Recent Criminal Reports 480. In this case too sample of Bundi was taken and was got analysed. The Public Analyst reported that sample contained unpermitted metanil yellow acid coaltar dye and his report was based on paper chromatography test. It was held :- "Paper chromatography test is not sufficient to conclude that the sample of Bundi contained unpermitted metanil yellow acid coaltar dye. If that is so, then it cannot be said that the accused respondent was found selling adulterated Bundi."
(3.) THE facts of the above mentioned case are similar to the facts of the present case in each respect. In this case the only test that was performed was paper chromatography. This test only revealed the presence of food colouring and it was not conclusive to determine that the coaltar dye used was permitted or non-permitted. There is no other data available on the report of Public Analyst or on the report of Director, Central Food Laboratory as to how they came to the conclusion that the coaltar dye was non-permitted. Consequently conviction of the petitioner cannot be upheld on the basis of a single test performed by the Public Analyst which was not enough to form a final judgment. I, therefore, allow this revision petition; set aside the conviction and sentence of the petition and acquit him of the offence with which he was charged. Fine, if deposited, be refunded.;