The judgment emphasizes the importance of meeting the legal definition of 'sale' and the necessity of providing adequate data in the Analyst's report to support a conviction.

1. This reference arises from a prosecution launched by the Food Inspector, Corporation of Trivandrum, under S.7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 37 of 1954. The case against the accused was that he sold lac dhal, otherwise known as kesari dhal, as 'thuvaraparippu'. On analysis, the Public Analyst certified that the sample consisted of lac dhal, otherwise known as kesari dhal (Lathyrus sativus). The accused was convicted by the Corporation First Class Magistrate, Trivandrum, under S.7 (2) read with S.16 of the Act and he was sentenced by him to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days. The accused took up the matter in revision before the Sessions Judge, Trivandrum, who found that the conviction could not be upheld. The learned judge has accordingly made this reference under S.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The grounds on which the learned Sessions Judge held that the conviction was not legal were (1) that there was no sale of the article to the Food Inspector and (2) that the certificate of the Public Analyst could not be acted upon, as he failed to give the data on which his opinion was based.

3. As regards the first point, the finding that there was no sale is based on the decision reported in Food Inspector, Calicut v. Parameswaran Chettiar (1961 K.L.T. 308). In that case the Food Inspector obtained a bottle of milk from the accused who was taking it to a hotel. The charge was that he sold milk adulterated with water and the sale relied on was the transaction by which the Food Inspector obtained the milk. It was held that the transaction did not amount to a sale. This decision cannot have any application to the facts of this case. It is admitted that the dhal obtained by the Food Inspector was from what was exposed for sale in the accused's shop. "Sale" has been defined in S.2 (xiii) of the Act as follows:

"Sale" with the grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means the sale of any article of food, whether for cash or on credit or by way of exchange and whether by wholesale or retail, for human consumption or use, or for analysis, and includes an agreement for sale, an offer for sale, the exposing for sale or having in possession for sale of any such article, and includes also an attempt to sell any such article".

The offer for sale, exposing for sale, or having in possession for sale amounts to a sale under the Act. The accused was examined as Dw.1, and his case was that the dhal from which the Food Inspector purchased a small quantity was what he had obtained from the wholesale dealer, It is therefore clear that there was sale of dhal in this case, and we are unable to agree with the conclusion reached by the learned Sessions judge that there was no sale.

4. The second point is that the Public Analyst has not given the data on which his conclusion was based and that the certificate, Ex. P-5, issued by him could not be acted upon. Several decisions, English and Indian, were cited before us in support of the argument that a certificate containing merely the opinion, and not the data on which the same is based, cannot be acted upon. In Newby v. Sims (1894) I-Q.B. 478, the conviction of the accused was set aside on the ground that the certificate did not state the proportion of water mixed with rum. Fortune v. Hanson, (1896) 1-Q.B 202, was a case in which the certificate was held to be bad as evidence of adulteration, as it did not state the constituent parts of the sample of milk analysed. The judgment in Goulder v. Rook, Bent v. Ormerod, Lie v. Bent, and Burlow v. Noblett, (1901) 2-K.B. 290, - four cases disposed of together, is also to the above effect. The absence of relevant data was held to be bad in Din Dayal v. State (A.I.R.1956 All. 520), State v. Shanti Ram (1958 All. 34), Municipal Board v. Badleo (1960 All. 504), and Gurucharan Dass v. The State (1957 Punj.109). These were cases of adulteration of ghee, milk and pepper.

5. It is