Specific indication given in the wrapper of the packet.

The petitioner who was convicted by the Courts, below under sections 7 (ii), 16(1)(a)(i) and 2(ix)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and who was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six month sand a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, has filed the above criminal revision case.

2. The facts of the case are that on 27th December, 1978, at about 9-00 a.m., P.W.1 the Food Inspector, purchased 600 grams of ‘Kesari powder’ after issuing a memo,. Exhibit P-1 to the petitioner. The bill for the sale of 600 grams of Kesari powder was issued by the petitioner to P.W.1 for Rs. 12 which is marked as Exhibit P-2. A statement, Exhibit P-4 was, also obtained by P.W.1 from the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner has sold ‘Kesari powder’. The Kesari powder purchased under Exhibit P-2 was sent to the Public Analyst and the Public Analyst has sent a report, Exhibit P-10. The Public Analyst opined that the sample tested by him contains a coal tar dye not permitted for use in any food. It is on the basis of this report sent by the Public Analyst, a case was filed against the petitioner after informing the petitioner the result of Public Analyst.

3. When the petitioner was questioned under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, with respect to the offence, he has stated as follows:

4. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Court convicted the petitioner holding that the petitioner is liable under sections 7 (ii), 16 (1) (a)(i) and 2 (ix) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and also imposed a fine of Ps. 1,000 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Against the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, C. A. No. 271 of 1979 was filed before the Sessions Court, Salem. The learned Sessions Judge, on a review of the evidence and also after hearing the arguments, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the trial Court, and dismissed the appeal. It is against this dismissal of the appeal, the above criminal revision case has been filed.

5. The petitioner in his grounds of revision contends that the Courts below ought to have held that Exhibit P-2 cannot be relied upon and that Exhibits P-1, P-3 and P-4 have been obtained under coercion and threat and inducement and consequently, they should not have been considered at all by the Courts below. Inter alia in the grounds of revision, the petitioner contends that on the evidence adduced by the Food Inspector (P.W.1), there is no case of misbranding, because the wrapper on which the article was sold to P.W. 1 clearly contains the words ‘Non-edible, Synthetic coal tar dyes for Industrial purpose’. Apart from the grounds of revision the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends before me that the evidence adduced in this case, more particularly the evidence of P.W. 1, clearly shows that the petitioner has not sold "kesari powder" but has only sold a packet over which it has been boldly printed as ‘non-edible, Synthetic coal tar dyes for Industrial purpose" and under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be convicted and sentenced under sections 7 (ii), 16 (1) (a) (i) and 2 (ix) (i) of the said Act.

6. The facts in this case are very clear. P.W. 1 the Food Inspector, went to the shop of the petitioner and demanded "kesari powder" Cm 27th December, 1978, at about 9.00 a.m. The petitioner herein has given three packets, each packet weighing 200 grams, to P.W.1 under Exhibit P-2. Even on the packets, which are said to have been sold by the petitioner it has been clearly printed that they are not food articles but on the other hand "non-edible synthetic coal tar dyes for Industrial purpose". P.W.1, on seeing the packets, would not have arrested the petitioner or charge-sheeted him under the aforesaid sections, for, the "kesari powder" purchased by P.W.1 was not in loose form but was in a seale