The use of synthetic food colour in Dal is prohibited as it is not mentioned as one of the items under Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, where the use of synthetic colours is permitted.

V.S.Aggarwal, J.

1. A criminal complaint has been filed against petitioner Mohinder Paul Singh. It pertains to offences punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In the complaint it is contended that the Food Inspector inspected the premises of the petitioner on 27.11.1989 at 11.40 a.m. The petitioner was found having in his possession about 10 kilograms of cooked Dal in a pot. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity and purchased 600 grams of cooked Dal. A notice required under the law was served. The purchased Dal was converted into three dry and clean bottles and drops of formalin were added. The same were labelled, wrapped and paper slips placed in accordance with the procedure prescribed. One representative sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab. The report was received which reads :-

"I further certify that I have caused to be analysed the afore- mentioned sample and declare the result of the analysis to be as follows :-

Physical Appearance - Contents in Whisky half.

Macro and Micro analysis - No inspect detected. No mould growth.

Batyro Refractometer reading at 40oC. of the extracted fat - 60.6

Baudouine test of the extracted fat - Gives Red colour with HCl.

Test for soluble coal trar dyes :

(1) 1 : 1 HCl test = Positive, (2) 13 NH2 SO4 test = Positive, (3) Test for stannous chloride = Positive; Paper Chromatography = A red oil - soluble coaltar dye detected and of the opinion that : contents of the sample contain an oil soluble coaltar dye of red shade which is an unpermitted colouring matter. Even the use of permitted food colours has not been allowed in such type of foods under the provisions of Rule 29 of PFA Rules, 1955.

Signed this 27th day of December, 1989."

Acting on the said report that the contents contained oil soluble coaltar dye, the complaint as such was filed. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate summoned the petitioner as an accused. By virtue of the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the complaint and the subsequent proceedings.

2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel urged that the report of the Central Food Laboratory had been received. It was at variance with the report of the Public Analyst. The complaint was not amended and, therefore, the proceedings could not continue. In the alternative he urged that no details of the yellow shade colouring matter had been given and in these circumstances it cannot be held that the Dal was adulterated. Before proceeding further and considering the said submissions, we may refer to the relevant extract of the report of the Central Food Laboratory which reads :-

"1. Physical appearance = Greenish yellow coloured product. 2. Test for the presence of artificial colouring matter = Positive and identified as an yellow shade unpermitted colouring matter by paper chromatography. 3. Test for the presence of preservatives :

(a) Sulphur dioxide = Negative.

(b) Benzoic acid = Negative.

and I am of the opinion that the sample does not conform to the general standards laid down for an article of food under the provisions of PFA Act, 1954 and Rules thereof, in that :-

(a) It is not free from the presence of an unpermitted yellow shade colouring matter.

2. The condition of the seals on the container and the outer covering on receipt was as follows :-

"Intact and unbroken. The seals fixed on the container and cover tallied with the specimen seal impression sent separately along with the copy of the memo".

3. Taking up the first contention of the petitioners learned counsel reliance obviously is being placed on sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which reads as under :-

"(3) The certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory (under sub-section (2-B)) shall supersede the report given by the public analyst under sub-section (1)."

It is on the strength of the aforesaid that it is alleged that once the report of the Central Food Laboratory which supersedes the r