ORDER :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 1217 of 2006, dated 05.06.2006. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the appellant and upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are: On 06.11.1992, Food Inspector, M.K Sharma, inspected the premises of the Hotel Regency where the appellant was present being the General Manager of the Hotel and found 5 kg of tomato soup for sale. The food inspector purchased a sample of the soup measuring 1500 ml for the purpose of analysis of the same. In furtherance of the above, one part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh.

3. As per the report of the Public Analyst, the sample was found to be containing colour with added S.S.Y. Coaltar Dye. Since the sample was found to be adulterated, a complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and notice in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, "the Act") was issued to the appellant. The appellant was charge-sheeted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and the case was committed to trial. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and he stated that tomato juice was added in the tomato soup along with the colour but the tests conducted by the Public Analyst are not sufficient to detect the colour.

4. The prosecution relied on the evidence adduced by the Food Inspector who was present at the hotel and took the sample of the soup and the report of the Public Analyst in order to substantiate its case. The counsel for the appellant would contend therein that there was no complaint from any of the customers of the hotel who were present while the Food Inspector carried out his visit. He further contended that the appellant has not sent the copy of the report of the Public Analyst.

5. The learned Magistrate rejected the aforesaid contentions raised by the counsel for the appellants observing that it is not necessary that there must be a complaint from any customer regarding adulteration in the food article and held that the Health Authority is duly competent to conduct a raid and take sample. Further, as per the evidence on record it is clear that the appellant has indeed sent a copy of the report of the Public Analyst. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act and sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months, by order dated 03.11.2000.

6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate the appellants preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court.

7. The counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no standard provided for the quality of the tomato soup in the Act and the sample cannot be termed as adulterated. Further, the finding in the Public Analyst report is not conclusive on the basis of the tests conducted by the Public Analyst.

8. The counsel for the respondent would submit that as per the definition of adulteration under Section 2(ia), the sample in question was found to be containing non-permitted colour and accordingly, the learned Magistrate has rightly convicted the appellant.

9. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties to the lis, rejected the contentions of the appellant and observed that as per Section 7 of the Act a person can be held liable for adulteration or misbranding of food for the purpose of sale, storage or distribution in contravention of the Act or the Rules made thereund