Nasim vs State of U.P.

J.P. Chaturvedi, J.—This is a revision against the judgment and order of the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur dismissing an appeal of the applicant Nasim and affirming his conviction for an offence u/s 7(i)/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to one year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

On 26th of April 1978 S.S. Negi, Chief Medical Inspector inspected the shop of the applicant at 1 P.M. and after giving a notice in Form VI he purchased 600 grams of halide after paying Rs. 6/- to him. The sample was divided into three parts, one of which was sent to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst reported that the sample was adulterated in as much as it contained an intermitted coal tar dye namely methanol yellow and was also mixed with foreign flour. After obtaining a sanction from the local health authority a complaint was made against the applicant. On the application of the applicant another part of the sample of the halide was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for analysis. The Director, Central Food Laboratory reported that it contained starch and yellow and orange color oil soluble coal tar dye and was, therefore, adulterated. The learned Magistrate framed a charge against the applicant in which reference was made to both the reports of Public Analyst and the Director, Central Food Laboratory. The charge was as follows:

Secondly: That on the said date, time and place Sri S.S. Negi Chief Food Inspector, Saharanpur purchased 600 gems. Halide powder from you for Rs. 6/- as sample for analysis. After completing all the legal requirements and formalities, the Chief Food Inspector, sent one of the sealed sample phial of Halide powder to the Public Analyst U.P. Lucknow, who vide his report No. 9808 dated 31-5-1978 found your above sample of Halide powder was colored with an intermitted coal tar dye namely Methanol yellow. It is also admixed with foreign flour mainly barley flour, and further on getting it analyzed by the Director Central Food Laboratory Ghaziabad Certificate No. CFL (6)/78-777 dated 27-12-1978 found that the sample was adulterated.

The prosecution examined witnesses and statement of the applicant u/s 313 was recorded. In his statement also the applicant was asked whether the sample of the Halide purchased from him by the Food Inspector was sent to the Public Analyst and the Director Central Food Laboratory and with reference to the report of the Public Analyst he was asked if the sample was found colored with methanol yellow and foreign flour. With reference to the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory he was merely asked if the sample was adulterated.

Section 13(3) provides that the certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory Under Sub-section (2) shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst Under Sub-section (1). In the circumstances the charge ought to have been framed with reference to the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory and not with reference to the report of the Public Analyst. In the present charge as pointed out earlier a detailed reference was made to the contents of the report of the Public Analyst whereas a reference to the report of the Director Central Food Laboratory was made only vaguely. It was not referred to as to how the Director found the contents of the sample to be adulterated It may further be pointed out that the reports of the Public Analyst and Director Central Food Laboratory are divergent in that that the former prohibited coal tar dye, namely methanol yellow was found in the sample of Halide while the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory indicates that no prohibited dye was found therein.

In the circumstances the applicant was not apprised for what offence he was being charged and the prejudice is apparent. The revision is, therefore, allowed and the conviction of the applicant u/s 7(i)/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentences awarded to the applicant there-Under are set aside. The applicant is on bail to which he need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.