G.S.CHAHAL, J. - (1.) BANSI Lal petitioner by means of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashing of complaint Annexure P -1 filed by the Government Food Inspector under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar, and all consequent proceedings.
(2.) THE petitioner is being prosecuted on the allegations that on 10th July, 1986 at 3.30 p.m., the Food Inspector inspected the premises of the petitioner and found him in possession of five kilograms of dal arhar for public sale. By serving notice in form VI and making dal homogeneous he purchased a sample of 750 grams for Rs. 4.00. This sample was divided into three equal parts, stoppered and sealed. One of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, which confirmed that the sample was coloured with added unpermitted metanil yellow coal tar dye and as such the petitioner was in possession of adultered food.
(3.) ACCORDING to the report of the Public Analyst, on its test for coloured by paper chromatography, added unpermitted metanil yellow coaltar dye was detected. Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, appearing for the petitioner, has urged that the chromatography test is not a sure test and the Public Analyst has not confirmed and ruled out the presence of any of the other colours. In support of his arguments he relied upon the observations of M.M. Punchhi, J., in Maya Ram v. The State of Punjab, 1987(II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 320, which read as under : - "........... So far as paper chromatography is concerned, the same could not bring forward whether the coal tar dye used was permissible or non -permissible. The ordinary dictionary meaning of chromatography is that it is a method of separating substances in a mixture which depend on selective absorption, partition between non -mixing solvents, etc., and which present the substances as a chromatogram, such as a series of visible bands in a vertical tube. And the word 'chromatic' is meant to pertain to, or consisting of colours. Thus, paper chromatography would reveal that there is present food colouring on coal tar dye. But on that test to conclude that it was permitted or non -permitted is rather begging the question. No other data is available on the Public Analyst's report as to how he had come to the conclusion that the coal tar dye was non -permitted. It has already been noticed that Rule 28 permits use to coal tar dye. The Public Analyst should have excluded in his opinion the possibility of all the five permitted coal tar dyes pertaining to red colour. As is plain, no such effort was made. Thus, the report of the Public Analyst cannot be taken as a gospel truth outweigh normal judicial balancing. If the Courts were to blindly follow the report of the Public Analyst, then to my mind it would be in the nature of abdication of judicial functions. It is to be borne in mind that the Public Analyst is just an expert and his opinion evidence should normally be clear and unambiguous so that it is understandable, if not to all, at least a sizable section of the people who are non -experts." I accept the arguments of the learned counsel and conclude that the prosecution of the petitioner on the basis of such report cannot end in conviction and the continuation of the same shall be an abuse of process of the Court. I hereby, allow this petition, and quash the complaint dated 10.7.1986 (Annexure P -1) and all consequent proceedings. Petition allowed.;