Jatinder Singh vs The State of Punjab

Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.—A complaint was filed by Dr. Randhir Singh, Medical Officer, Rural Dispensary, Rayya, District Amritsar, against the petitioner, u/s 16(1)(a)(i), read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the following allegations. The petitioner is a partner in Quality Restaurant, Lawrence Road Amritsar. On Jan. 15, 1977, the complainant visited the said Restaurant and found in possession of the petitioner two killograms of white sauce in a tin which was meant for public sale. It is alleged that he disclosed to the petitioner that he was a Food Inspector and authorised to seize the samples of the food stuffs from him. He served a notice upon the petitioner disclosing his intention to take the sample of white sauce from him. He paid an amount of Rs. 7.50 to the petitioner and purchased from him 600 grams of white sauce. He divided the sauce into three separate parts and put them in three dry and clean bottles and added formaline to the sauce in each bottle. The bottles were thereafter sealed. One bottle was kept by the Food Inspector, the second was given to the petitioner and the third was given to the Medical Officer of Health, as contemplated u/s 11 of the Act. The Food Inspector sent his sample to the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh. After the receipt of the report from the Public Analyst, a complainf was filed by the Food Inspector in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Court, after recording preliminary evidence, charge-sheeted the petitioner u/s 16(1)(a)(i), read with Section 7 of the Act vide order dated Sept. 14, 1977. This petition has been had u/s 482/401, Cr.PC for quashing the complaint and the order dated Sept. 14, 1977.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the quantity of sauce, which was sent to the Public Analyst, was 200 grams, whereas it should have been 300 grams under the provisions of Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). In support of his contention, he made a reference to item No. 18 of Rule 22 of the Rules, wherein quantity of various articles of food, which are required to be taken by the Inspector for sending to Public Analyst have been given,

I have considered the argument of the learned counsel and find force in it. The word ''sauce'' has been defined in Rule A 16.12 of Appendix ''B'' annexed to the Rules, as follows :

A. 16.12, ''Sauce'' hall be the product derived from any suitable kind and variety of fruit and vegetable which are wholesome and which shall be practically free from insect or fungal attack or blemish affecting the quality of the fruit or vegetable-The only substances that may be added are fruits, vegetable, their pulp, juice, dried fruit, sugar, spices, salt, vinegar, acetic acid, citric acid, malic acid, onion, garlic, flavouring material and permitted preservatives. It shall not contain any coaltar dye....

It is common knowledge that the main ingredients for manufacturing sauce are pulp of fruit and vegetables to which are added sugar, spices, flavouring material, etc., to give taste; and preservatives, to prevent decomposition or fermentation. Thus it is a product mainly derived from fruit and vegetable. From the definition also, it is evident that the main ingredients for preparing sauce are pulp of fruit and vegetable and other articles mentioned in it are added either to give taste and flavour or to preserve it. In Rule 22, the word ''sauce'' does not find place in the articles mentioned under the heading ''Articles of food'', but fruit and vegetable product finds place in item No. 18 which reads as follows :

The quantity of sample of food to be sent to the Public Analyst/Director for analysis shall be as specified below :

Articles of food. Approximate quantity to be supplied. _________________ _____________ xx xx xx xx 18. Fruit and vege- 300 grams, table products, jams, jellies and the like.

From a reading of the item, it is clear that it inter alia relates to the product of fruit and vegetables. As already observed above, sauce is a product of fruit and vegetable as defined in the Rules. In the circumstances, I am of the view that it will be governed by item No. 18.

According to item No. 18, if any article out of the articles mentioned in it is required to be sent for analysis to a Public Analyst, its quantity should be approximately 300 grams. In the present case, 200 grams of sauce was sent for the said purpose, which is two third of the requisite quantity.

It is now to be seen as to what is the effect if the quantity, lesser than the one prescribed under Rule 22, is sent for the purpose of chemical analysis. This matter has been concluded by a decision of the Supreme Court in Rajaldas Gurunamal Pamanani Vs. The State of Maharashtra, . In that case the quantity sent to the analyst was lesser than the quantity prescribed in Rule 22. It was observed by Ray, C. J., speaking for the Court, as follows (at p. 256 of Cri LJ):

The appellant rightly contends that non-compliance with the quantity to be supplied caused not only infraction of the provisions but also injustice. The quantities mentioned are required for correct analysis. Shortage in quantity for analysis is not permitted by the statute.

It is evident from the above observations; that an adverse report to the accused by at Public Analyst on the basis of chemical analysis of an article, requisite quantity of which was not supplied to him, will do great injustice to the accused. It is on account of this fact that the rule making authority considered it proper to prescribe in the Rules, the minimum quantities of articles required for chemical analysis. Therefore, an accused cannot be convicted on the basis of such a report. In the present case, as already observed, the quantity of sauce sent for chemical analysis, was two-third of the requisite quantity. Consequently the proceedings pending in the trial Court against the accused are liable to be quashed.

For the reasons recorded above, I accept the petition and quash the complaint and the order dated 14-9-1977.