Microscopic test only conducted which is not adequate.

1. The Food Inspector, Kodungallur Municipality, the complainant in S.T.I 13 of 1983 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the I class, Kodungallur, has filed this appeal against the order of acquittal of respondents of the offence under S.2(ia) and 7(i) read with S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 37 of 1954 and Rule A.05.08.01 of Appendix B and Rule 5 of the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

2. The prosecution case is as follows: On 22-1-1983 at about 9.30 a.m. the appellant visited the shop of Al which was conducted in Door No.13/294 of the Kodungallur Municipality. A2 was the salesman. He purchased 500 grams of coriander powder for the purpose of analysis. After complying with the formalities, the sample was sent for analysis. Ext.P10 report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed by the Act and the rules and that therefore it was adulterated.

3. On the basis of the report a complaint was lodged by P.W.1. The matter was intimated to the Local Health Authority. The Local Health Authority sent a copy of the report and the notice to the accused. Exts. P2 and P3 are respectively the postal acknowledgements for having received the report. P5 mahazar was prepared at the time of taking sample which was attested by P.W2 the nearby shop owner.

4. On the accused pleading not guilty, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 3 and also marked Exts.P1 to P13 and the material objects, packets 5 in number. In their statement under S.313, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence.

5. P.W.1 is the complainant, P.W.2 is the nearby shop-owner and P.W.3 is peon of P.W.1 who accompanied him to the shop. P.W.2 however did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Ext. P8 application and P9 copy of the licence clearly indicate that A1 was the owner of the shop and the lower court has correctly found that A1 is the owner.

6. However, the lower court acquitted the accused on the ground that there was no proper analysis. Ext.P10 would show that he conudcted microscopic examination. He had not stated in Ext.P10 report that he has done any test other than microscopic test and the indication from Ext.P10 is that he conducted only microscopic test. The lower court found that in the absence of chemical test it cannot be held whether or not the sample conformed to the prescribed standard. In coming to the conclusion, the lower court relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court in the decision in Jagdish Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh Jagdish Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1982) 1 S.C.C. 350. In that case the lower court acquitted the accused on the ground that the public analyst did not perform the chemical test for analysing the sample and the only test conducted was the microscopic test. The items concerned in that case were A.05.61 and A.05.061 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, after noticing the standard prescribed for these items held at various ingredients such as ash, insoluble in HC1, or volatile oil or moisture in the sample in question could not be ascertained with any degree of accuracy by mere ocular examination under a microscope and chemical test including treatment of the ash in the sample with hydrochloric acid would be a must and that since the sample was not subjected to any chemical test or analytical process, the opinion of the public analyst was not entitled to any weight.

7. The standard prescribed for coriander powder is as follows:

A. 05.08.01 Coriander (Dhania) powder means the powder obtained by grinding clean dried coriander fruits of Coriandum Sativum L. It shall be in the form of a rough or fine powder. It shall conform to the following standards.

Moisture Not more than 12.0 per-cent by weight

Total ash Not more than 7.0 per-cent by weight

Ash insoluble in dilute HC1 Not more than 1.5 per-cent by weight

The Supreme Court in the abo