Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 2192
DELHI HIGH COURT
M.L.Mehta, J.
Delhi Administration - Appellant
Versus
Amar Chand - Resopndent
Crl. L.P. No. 266 of 2012
Decided On : 21-05-2012
For the Petitioner: Mr. Manoj Ohri, Advo#31;cate.
For the Respondent: None.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of rules regarding the use of synthetic color in food items and the impact of delay on the evidentiary value of the report by the Public Analyst.
Headnote:
Food Adulteration - PF Act - 7/16 - Rule 28, Rule 29, Article A.18.06, M/s Laxman Dass Sarvotam Doshi & Company Vs. Maharashtra 1975 FAC 153, K.B. Devassi Kutty’s case, Babubhai Ranchhodbhai Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was convicted under the PF Act for selling adulterated 'Dal Moth' colored with synthetic color. The appeal against the conviction was based on the argument that the use of synthetic color was not prohibited under specific rules and that the report of the Public Analyst had lost its evidentiary value due to delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the use of synthetic color 'Tartrazine' in 'Dal Moth' did not fall under the category of added coloring matter prohibited in foodgrains, as per Rule 28 and Article A.18.06. The court also noted that the delay in finalizing the report by the Public Analyst affected its evidentiary value.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of rules regarding the use of synthetic color in food items and the evidentiary value of the report by the Public Analyst.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Rule 28, Rule 29, and Article A.18.06, as well as previous case law such as M/s Laxman Dass Sarvotam Doshi & Company Vs. Maharashtra 1975 FAC 153 and K.B. Devassi Kutty’s case. The court also considered the impact of delay on the evidentiary value of the report.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the leave petition, upholding the judgment of the Learned ASJ and acquitting the respondent.
Crl. M.A. No. 6327/2012 (Exemption) in CRL.L.P. 266/2012 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application is disposed of.
CRL.L.P. 266/2012
1. This is an appeal U/s 378 (3) Cr.P.C. by the Delhi Administration against the judgment of Learned ASJ whereby the judgment of conviction dated 26.08.2011 and order on sentence dated 08.09.2011 of the respondent U/s 7/16 of the PF Act were set aside.
2. The respondent Amar Chand was convicted by the Learned M.M. vide judgment dated 26th August, 2011 U/s 7/16 of the PF Act and sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of which for additional imprisonment of ten days. The respondent preferred appeal against the said order of conviction and sentence before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge who vide his impugned judgment dated 19.11.2011 set aside the order of conviction and sentence and acquitted the respondent. This order of acquittal has been assailed by the State in the present leave petition.
3. The respondent was conducting business in foodgrains. Sample of “Dal Moth” was taken by the Food Inspector which on analysis by the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated being coloured with synthetic colouring tartrazine. The Public Analyst gave his report in this regard as Ex. PW 1/F. Before the Learned M.M., the prosecution had examined three witnesses including the Food Inspector. In the appeal before the Ld. ASJ the challenge to the order of conviction was mainly on the ground that the use of synthetic colouring tartrazine was not prohibited under Rule 28 and 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. It was also the plea of the respondent convict that the report of the Public Analyst had been given after much delay of analysis of sample and so had lost its evidentiary value.
4. The present leave petition has been filed by the State alleging that “Dal Moth” falls within the category of foodgrains under Article A.18.06 and A.18.06.14 of Appendix B of the PFA Rules in which the addition of colour was not allowed and so the sample article was not covered in the list given in Rule 29. It is alleged that the synthetic colouring tartrazine was not permissible under the PF Rule though its quantity was not mentioned by the Public Analysis in his report.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
6. Rule 28 of the PFA Rules permits use of certain synthetic food colours or mixtures thereof in food. One of the colours that is permissible to be used in food is yellow, commonly known as ‘Tartrazine’. Rule 29 prohibits use of permitted synthetic food colours in the food items other than those mentioned therein. Clause (b) thereof provides for use of permitted synthetic food colours including Tartrazine in the savouries such as Dal Moth etc. There is no dispute that Dal Moth is a foodgrain within the meaning of Article A.18.06 of Appendix B. Since there is no specific standard of Dal Moth mentioned in the Articles starting from A.18.06.01 to A.18.06.130, which prescribes standards for other foodgrains such as wheat, maize, jwar-bazra, rice, masoor, urad, moong etc., Dal Moth would be covered under the residuary Article A.18.06.14 which prescribes standards for all other foodgrains which are not specified in the Articles A.18.06 to A.18.06.13. As per general standards of foodgrains as provided in A.18.06, the foodgrain was to be free from argemone maxicana and kesari in any form and also from added colouring matter. Beside this, there are other specifications with which we are not concerned. Now, having noted that Tartrazine being synthetic food colour and permissible in the food as per Rule 28 and Dal Moth which is undisputedly a food item, then, as per Rule 28, this is not a prohibited colour. Making a harmonious construction of provisions contained in Rule 28 and Article A.18.06, it may be said that Tartrazine though a synthetic food colour would not fall in the category of added colouring matter, which
