The Public Analyst's report must be sufficient to prove that the food is adulterated. The report must specify the particular type of adulterant used and the Public Analyst must be examined to explain the basis of his conclusion.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 9.7.1985 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak who affirmed the judgment and order dated 30.11.1984 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar who convicted the petitioner under section 16(1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine the petitioner was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

2. The brief facts of the case can be described as follows :-

On 5.8.1982, at about 8.00 p.m., Sant Lal the then Govt. Food Inspector Rohtak PW1 accompanied by Dr. J. Chanda PW3 came to the shop of the petitioner situated near the office of the Municipal Committee, Beri and found 3 kgs. of hard boil confectionery (Mithi golis) in three closed packets for public sale. After disclosing his identity, Sant Lal GFI purchased 600 gms of hard boil confectionery from one of the three packets after opening the same on payment of Rs. 6/- vide receipt Ex. PB. These were divided into three packets, put in the three dry clean bottles which were then separately corked, wrapped, labelled and sealed as required under the rules. Spot memo Ex. PC was also prepared. Prem Narain PW who witnessed the seizure of the sample also attested the spot memo. Ex. PC and receipt Ex. PB. One of the said sealed bottles containing the samples of the heard boil confectionery purchased from the petitioner was got analysed and on analysis it was found to be adulterated inasmuch as it was found coloured with unpermitted red basic coal tar dye. Report Ex. PD dated 3.9.1982 was sent by the Public Analyst Haryana to the Local (Health) Authority, Rohtak. On the receipt of the said report complaint Ex. PE was filed by Shri Balwan Singh the then Govt. Food Inspector, Rohtak.

3. After filing the complaint in the court, memo Ex. PG was sent to the petitioner per registered post regarding launching of prosecution against him. A copy of the report of Public Analyst was also sent to him and he was duly informed that he could get the sample reanalysed from the Central Food Laboratory if he so desired.

4. Upon appearance of the petitioner in the court statement of Sant Lal GFI was recorded as PW 1 and on the basis of his statement, the petitioner was charged under section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Court of learned SDJM, Jhajjar.

5. After the framing of the charge, Sant Lal GFI was cross-examined by the petitioner. Balwant Singh GFI PW 2 and Dr. (Mrs.) J. Chanda PW 3 were also examined while Prem Narain, independent PW, was given up as having been won over by the petitioner. On the closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.PC was recorded in which the incriminating circumstances appeared against him were put to him. The petitioner denied the prosecution version. However, he admitted that the GFI had come to his shop and had taken away the hard boiled confectionary which were lying there in the almirah. He alleged that he had purchased the same from M/s Brij Lal Krishan Lal, Qilla Road, Rohtak for personal use of his children, but he had forgotten to deliver the same to his children. It was further pleaded by the petitioner that Sant Lal GFI had himself taken out the hard boiled confectionary in question from his almirah and he had even shown the bill of purchase of the same to the GFI but the latter declined to consider the same by saying that it might be shown in the court. In defence the petitioner examined Brij Lal PW1 and appeared as his own witness as DW2.

6. The learned Magistrate vide impugned judgment dated 30.11.1984 believed the prosecution version and disbelieved the defence version and convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the manner as stated above. Aggrieved by his c