Back
2005 Supreme(Gau) 180
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
P.G. Agarwal, J.
Arun Kr. Singh - Appellants
Vs.
State of Assam - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 686 of 2001
Decided On: 03.03.2005
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: A. Baruah and B.L. Yadav, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: F.H. Laskar, Adv.
The presence of unauthorized color additives in food products constitutes adulteration under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
Headnote:
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Adulteration of Moth Dal - Section 16, Section 7 - Rule 29
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted for selling Moth Dal adulterated with coal tar tartrazine. The appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentenced the petitioner to imprisonment and fine.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found evidence of the sample collection and sale, and upheld the conviction based on the presence of tartrazine in Moth Dal, which violated Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.
Issues: The issues included the admissibility of the Public Analyst's report, compliance with Section 13(2) of the Act, and the interpretation of the definition of 'adulterated' under Section 2(ia)(j).
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the presence of tartrazine in Moth Dal constituted adulteration under Section 2(ia)(j) and upheld the conviction based on Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was ordered to serve the sentence and pay the fine.
P.G. Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Mr. R.L. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. F.H. Laskar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam.
2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Criminal Appeal No. 48/2001, arising out of judgment and order dated 6.8.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat in C.R. Case No. 10/95 under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
3. In C.R. Case No. 10/95 the present-petitioner Sri Arun Kumar Singh along with one J.P. Singh were tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat for commission of the offence under Section16, read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, for short the Act. The Prosecution case is that on 21.10.95, the Senior Food Inspector, Jorhat collected sample of Moth Dal from the vendor Arun Kumar Singh.
4. On analysis the sample of Moth Dal was found to be artificially coloured with Coal tar tartrazine, which is not permitted to be used in Moth Dal as per Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The trial Court, on conclusion of the trial convicted both the accused persons and sentenced them accordingly. Feeling aggrieved, the convicts preferred Criminal Appeal No. 14/2001 and the appellate Court acquitted the accused J.P. Singh, the alleged owner of the shop, but confirmed the order of conviction of the petitioner and sentenced him to imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000, in default to further imprisonment for 3 months. Hence, the present revision.
5. In this case we find that there is evidence of Food Inspector as well as the other witnesses as regards the collection of sample of Moth Dal from the vendor Arun Kumar Singh. The prosecution has also brought on record the report of the Public Analyst, Ext. 13. The accused has also admitted the collection of sample by the Food Inspector and sale of Moth Dal to the Food Inspector by him on consideration. Learned Counsel for the petitioner accused has challenged the impugned order of conviction stating inter alia that the report of the Public Analyst has not been challenged and even if it is held that coal tar colour tartrazine was found in the Moth Dal, the accused cannot be held guilty as the sample was not adulterated. In support of the said plea the learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Nath Singh v. State of Assam 2002 (1) GLR 234, wherein this Court observed:
Moreover, I am constrained to make the observation that in the said report of the Public Analyst (Ext. 7), there is no whispering that the food article, i.e., the sample is 'Bundiya Ladoo' is an adulterated food within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act of 1954 except the opinion that the sample contains non-permitted coal tar colour material yellow. It is the expert. Public Analyst, who is to give his opinion whether the sample food is adulterated or not within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act of 1954 but in the instant case, the Public Analyst did not give any opinion or finding that the food is adulterated as discussed above. There is an Explanation clause in Section 2of the Act of 1954 which runs, thus:
Explanation - Where two or more articles of primary food are mixed together and the resultant article of food-
(a) is stored, sold or distributed under a name which denotes the ingredients thereof; and
(b) is not injurious to health, then, such resultant article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this clause.
Therefore, in my considered view this opinion of the expert, Public Analyst, is not clear, in other words, it is vague. Be that as it may, this Court need not go more into depth to other legal issues as suffice is made with the above observations for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court which was affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court.
6. The question raised was agita
