Gurnam Singh, J. - (1.) Mool Chand son of Nathu Ram shop-keeper, resident of Kaithal was convicted under section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00, or, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kaithal. The appeal filed by Mool Chand in the Court of Sessions Judge, Karnal, failed. Mool Chand has filed this revision petition.
(2.) The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that Shri Balwan Singh, Government Food Inspector, Kaithal, took a sample of sweets from the shop of Mool Chand on 20-10-1971 at 12.15. P.M. The sample was divided into three equal parts and the packets were sealed separately. One sealed packet was given to Mool Chand, the second was retained by Shri Balwan Singh, Government Food Inspector, and the third was sent to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst reported that the sample was coloured with prohibited coal tar dye and as such was not fit for human consumption. Shri Balwan Singh filed complaint on 13-12-1971, which resulted in the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that under rules 28 and 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, the yellow coal tar dye namely Tartrazine and Sunset Yellow FCF can be used in sweets and because the Public Analyst, in his report, Exhibit P.D., had not described as to which of the yellow coal tar dye was used in the sample, so the conviction of the petitioner is bad in law. He further pointed out that the complaint in this case was filed after about two months of the taking of the sample and as such the petitioner could not avail the right given to him under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.;