B.S.YADAV,J - (1.) IT is not necessary to narrate the prosecution story in detail as the case is fully covered by the judgment of this court rendered in Criminal Revision No. 705 of 1981 (Maya Ram v. The State of Punjab, decided on 15th July, 1983. Suffice it to say that a sample of Patisa was seized by a Government Food Inspector on 28th October, 1982 from the petitioner. It was sent to public Analyst, who vide report Exhibit PD opined as follows :- 1. Wool double dyeing test Positive 2. Acid dye Absent 3. Basic dye Present 4. Test for colour by paper chromatography Unpermitted yellow basic coal tar dye present.
(2.) THE sample was coloured with unpermitted yellow basic coal tar dye. After the receipt of the Public Analyst's report prosecution was launched against the petitioner. On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst the learned trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs 100/-. The appeal filed by the appellant before the learned Sessions Judge, Jind, did not meet with any success. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued only on the basis of paper chromatographic method, the Public Analyst opined that non-permitted yellow basic coal tar dye was present in the sample and that no other data has been given about that opinion and, therefore, on the basis of that report the petitioner could not have been convicted. In support of his contention he has relied upon Maya Ram's case (supra). I am of the opinion that this argument has force. In Maya Ram's case (supra) sample of burfi was taken. On the basis of paper chromatographic test the Public Analyst opined that red non-permitted basic coal tar dye was present in the sample. On the basis of that report the accused was convicted by the trial court and his appeal failed. He came to this Court in revision. It was remarked :- "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 has come to the conclusion that the coal tar dye was non-permitted. It has already been noticed that rule 28 permits use of 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 he taken as the gospel of truth and 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 a Public Analyst is just an expert and his opinion evidence should normally be clear and unambiguous so that it was understandable, if not to all, at least to a sizeable section of the people who are non-experts." The accused was acquitted in that case.
(3.) THE above observations are clearly applicable to the present case. The Public Analyst has not given any other data in support of his opinion except the paper chromatography test. Accordingly, the present petition succeeds. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set aside and after giving him benefit of doubt he is acquitted of the charge. Fine, if paid, be refunded to him.;