The report of a Public Analyst is not conclusive and the court has to arrive at its own conclusion as to whether an article of food is adulterated or not.

( 1 ) HOLDING him guilty under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Ramesh Kumar Bhandoola s/o Shri K. L. Bhandoola, was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 1000. 00 or in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months by a Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi vide jadgment/order dated 5th July, 1977. His appeal against conviction and sentence aforesaid was dismissed by an Addl Sessions Judge, New Delhi on 22nd September, 1978.

( 2 ) STILL being unsatisfied from the decisions of the two courts holding him guilty, Ramesh Kumar Bhandoola has filed this Revision Petition.

( 3 ) THE facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are short and can be described briefly. The petitioner was carrying on business under the name of Soverign Departmental Stores Keventer s. Lane, Sardar Patel, Marg, New Delhi. On 13th August, 1975, Food Inspector S. D. Sharma while accompanied by sample box carrier Jage visited the business premises of the petitioner and after disclosing his identity and expressing his desire to purchase a sample of Cashewnut salted fried in ground-nut oil, purchased 750 gms. of the- Cashewnuts, which were put in three dried and clean bottles in accordance with law. These bottles were fastened and sealed and one bottle was sent to the Public Analyst for getting a report. The petitioner on enquiry had informed the Food Inspector that the Cashewnuts were fried ingroundnut oil and were salted. A report dated 23rd August, 1977 was received from the Public Analyst staling therein that the sample was mis-branded as the same had been prepared with Vanaspati but it was declared to be prepared with groundnut oil. It is aftergetting the said report that a complaint was filed against the petitioner in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate for trial.

( 4 ) IN support of its case the complainant himself appeared as Public Witness 1 and examined three other witnesses. The petitioner was given a chance to explain the incriminating evidence produced against him in the complaint by way of recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code Criminal Code. He has admitted about the taking of sample from him by the Food Inspector on 13th August, 1975. He has, however, claimed that it was only at the instructions of the Food Inspector that he declared the cashewnuts having been fried in ground-nut oil as the Vanaspati was not available in the market in those days. It was further pleaded by him that the article in question was a prepared food and the Food Inspector had purchased cashewnuts in quantity less than that prescribed under the rules and that he had even shown to the Food Inspector the credit memo about having purchased the cashewnuts from Chand Dry Fruit Mart and Jain Dry Fruit Mart. He however did not produce any evidence in his defence.

( 5 ) I have heard Shri D. C. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B. J. Nayyar, learned counsel for the respondent. I have also carefully gone through the records.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge framed against the petitioner was vague on account of which the petitioner has been prejudiced in his right of defending himself and on this account alone his conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside. He has also submitted that the charge does not indicate as to how it was a case of "misbranded/ adulterated". Aperusal of the judgments of the courts below indicate that the petitioner has been held to be guilty on account of the article being misbranded and not adulterated. Even the report Ex. PG of the Public Analyst has mentioned the article to be only misbranded and not adulterated. There was, thus, no evidence against the petitioner with regard to the article being adulterated and, thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been prejudiced in his defence qua the a