IMPORTANT POINT
The directory nature of the time period of 45 days under Rule 7 (3) of the PFA Rules for the PA to give the report.

ORDER

S. Muralidhar, J.— For the reasons stated therein, the delay of 37 days in filing the criminal leave petition is condoned.

2. The application is disposed of.

3. This is a petition seeking leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 18th April 2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in CC No. 109 of 2002, acquitting the Respondent of the offence under Section 2(ia), (a) and (j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (‘PFA Act’) punishable under Section 16(1A) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act.

4. The case of the Petitioner is that on 7th November 2001, at about 8.30 pm, the Food Inspector purchased a sample of 1500 gms of Boondi Laddoo from the Respondent. One sample tested by the Public Analyst (‘PA’) was found adulterated because the total dye content of the synthetic colour used exceeded the prescribed maximum limit of 100 ppm. Despite the report of the PA being available within ten days from the purchase of sample, the complaint was filed one year later, i.e., on 11th November 2002. The learned trial Court held that there is no satisfactory explanation of the inordinate delay of one year in filing the complaint under the PFA Act.

5. As a result of the above delay, there was a further delay in sending the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory (‘CFL’), Pune for testing. The Director, CFL opined that the ‘sample contained extraneous synthetic color viz., ‘Tartrazine’ more than the permissible limit and the sample contravened Rule 30 of the PFA Rules, 1955.

6. As regards the delay in filing the complaint, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the judgment in T.V. Usman v. Food Inspector, Tellicherry Municipality, Tellicherry. JT 1994(1) SC 260 A perusal of the said judgment shows that the discussion was regarding the directory nature of the time period of 45 days under Rule 7 (3) of the PFA Rules for the PA to give the report. In the present case, even though the PA gave a report within two weeks, the complaint was filed more than one year later. Therefore, the above decision does not assist the case of the Petitioner.

7. The learned ACMM has noted that the two samples were not truly representative of the food article purchased. Adverting to the differences in the two reports, the ACMM in para 13 of the impugned order observed as under:

‘The PA vide report Ex.PW1D had come to the conclusion of there being ‘Tartrazine’ to the extent of 395.35 ppm in the first sample counterpart whereas the Director, CFL opined it to be to the tune of 156 ppm only in respect of the second counterpart of the same sample.’

8. The variations in the above parameters being more than 0.3%, the benefit of doubt was rightly granted to the Respondent.

9. No grounds have been made out for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

10. The trial Court record be sent back forthwith.

**********