The interpretation of rule 22-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was central to the court's decision, allowing the reliance on the report of the Public Analyst despite the purchase of samples from separate packets.

P. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent who was prosecuted on a charge tbat on 11-5-1974, at about 10. 30a. m. at Sardar Vallabhai Patel Market, Visakhapatnam, out of the sweets In her possession exposed for sale, the respondent sold 600 grams of sweets in three packets containing 200 grams for Rs. 6/ for purposes of analysis and that on analysis by the Public Analyst the sample was found to have been adulterated having contained Rhodamin B and non-permitted yellow coaltar dye.

( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that P. W. I, the Food Inspector purchased the samples from the stocks of the respondent which were exposed for sale. However, the learned Magistrate did not find the respondent guilty on the ground that the report of the Public Analyst could not be relied upon for the reason that the purchase for purposes of analysis was not made from the same packet hut three separate packets each containing 200 grams were purchased by P W I, from the respondent. But the learned Magistrate overlooked rule 22-A of the Prevention of Food adulteration, Rules which is as follows:"where food is sold or slocfced for sale or for distribution in sealed containers having identical label declaration, the contents of one or more of such containers as may be required to satisfy the quantity prescribed in rule 22 shall be treated to be part of the sample",therefore, it is clear that ignoring this rule the learned Magistrate misdirected himself with tegard to the value to be given to the report of the Public Analyst, The report of the Public Analyst shows that there was cleir adulteration, the sweets having contained Rhodam n B and non. permitted vellow coaltar dye The report of the Analyst amply establishes the puil* of the respondent. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The acquittal of the respondent is set aside and she is convicted under Section T6 (1) and (7) read with Section 2 (1) (a) and (1) of the Prevent ion of Food Adulteration act and Rule 28 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. l. OOO/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. P. N. R. Crl. Appeal allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document