Back
1972 Supreme(Del) 210
High Court Of Delhi
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI - Appellant
Versus
RAM SARUP - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 90 of 1972
Decided On : 09/04/1972
O.P.MALHOTRA, Y.Dayal
The report of the Public Analyst must be clear and specific and must state the data on which the conclusion of adulteration is based.
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT - SECTION 7, 16 - ADULTERATION - INSECT INFESTATION - REPORT OF PUBLIC ANALYST - VAGUENESS - CONVICTION CANNOT BE BASED ON SUCH A REPORT.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was prosecuted for the alleged offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Food Inspector purchased a quantity of Besan from the respondent's shop and sent it to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst reported that the sample of Besan was "very highly insect infested" and was, therefore, adulterated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the report of the Public Analyst was vague and did not supply the data on which a correct conclusion could be reached by the court. The court also found that the Public Analyst had adopted different and varying standards in his earlier reports.
Issues: Whether the report of the Public Analyst was sufficient to prove that the Besan was adulterated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the report of the Public Analyst was vague and did not supply the data on which a correct conclusion could be reached by the court. The court also found that the Public Analyst had adopted different and varying standards in his earlier reports. The court held that conviction cannot be based on such a report.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Additional Session Judge dated February, 24, 1972. Ram Sarup, respondent, was prosecuted for the alleged offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevetioa of Food Ad ulteration Act. On October, 3, 1970, the Food Inspector Shri M. L. Chawla went to his shop and purchased a quantity of Besan. On one of the samples being sent to the Public Analyst Shri Prem Prakash Bhatnagar, it was analysed on October 6, 1970. The public Analyst made his report that the sample of Besan was "very highly insect infested" and was, therefore, adulterated. The relevant portion of his report is as follows -
"i further certify that I have caused to be analysed the afore-mentioned sample, and declare the result of the analysis to be as follows:- Date of Analysis : 6-10-1970. Total Ash: 2. 55% Ash insoluble in dil Hcl : 0-05%. Microscopic : No Objection. Insect Infestation : Very highly insect infested. Colour : No artificial colour present and am of the opinion that the same is adulterated due to the presence of highly insect infestation".
( 2 ) THE trial Magistrate found the respondent guilty and sentenced him to undergo R. 1. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 or in default of payment of fine to a further R. 1. for three months.
( 3 ) THE respondent preferred TO an appeal to the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and acquitted the respondent. Against the order of acquittal the Municipal Corporation obtained special leave on May 25, 1972 and this appeal has come up by special leave.
( 4 ) THE standard of quality for besan is prescribed under appendix 3 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 at item A 18-04 as follows:-
"besan msans the product obtained by grinding dehusked Bengal gram (Cicer aritinum and shall not contain any added colouring matter or any other foreign ingredient. Besan shall conform to the following standards: (a) Total ash. . . . . . . . . Not more than 5 per cent. (b) Ash insoluble in HCL. . . . . . . . . Not more than 0-5 per cent. "
( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that according to the standard laid down, Besan shall not contain any foreign ingredient. According to the report of the Public Analyst Besan was found insect infested and this proved, according to the counsel, that there were foreign ingredients in Besan. It was also submitted that the learned A Sessions Judge followed the case of Khucheroo Mall vs. State. 1971 Delhi Law Times 138 (1), while a Division Bench of this court in Dlianraj v. M. C. D. (1972 F. A. C. 335) (2) has taken a different view and, therefore, the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be sustained in view of the pronouncement of the Division Bench.
( 6 ) SHRI Prem Prakash Bhatnagar was examined as a prosecution witness. In his statement recorded on June, 26, 1971 he proved his report and deposed as follows :-
"i have used the word very highly infested in report Ex. PE because there must have been dead or living insects in the instant sample in great number. By insect infestation in Besan I mean the presence of live or dead insects. "
( 7 ) WHEN asked by the defence counsel as to what prevented him from making a mention of dead or living insects in the report Ex. PE, he stated :
"in my view the word infestation in iteself implies that dead or living insects are present as such I had not felt the necessity of mentioning it. "
( 8 ) THIS witness was confronted with his statement which he had made earlier in the court of Miss. S. Saini, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Delhi in another case ; M. C. D. v. Balkishan (Case No. 178/3)0) which was recorded on February, 19, 1971. In that statement he had stated that where he found living or dead insects present in the sample he mentioned the same in his report and where he did not find the same, he did not mention it. His answer was that for detection o
