The paper chromatography test alone is not sufficient to conclude whether permitted or un-permitted coaltar-dye has been used.

A.S.Nehra, J.

1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palwal and was sentenced to undergo R. I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was further ordered to undergo R. I. for three months, by order dated March 7, 1986. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Faridabad on August 6, 1986 and hence this revision petition.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15-6-1982, at about 6.10 P.M. Shri Piare Lal, Food Inspector, Faridabad, accompanied by Dr. R. K. Sharma Gaur, went to the shop of the accused petitioner situated in Gau Khana Bazar, Palwai where he was found having about 20 Kgs of Ladoo Bundi for public sale in a Thal. The Food Inspector served him notice Exhibit PA after disclosing his identity and purpose and purchased 900 grams of Ladoo Bundi from the accused for analysis after associating Subhash Chander a non-official witness. An amount of Rs. 5.40 as price of Ladoo Bundi was paid to the accused against receipt Exhibit PB. The purchased quantity of Bundi was then divided equally into three dry and clean bottles and the bottles were corked, labelled and sealed with the seal of the Food Inspector. The same were then wrapped in a thick paper and the code number slip was pasted on each bottle and the same was re-sealed with the seal of Food Inspector and that of doctor R. K. Sharma Gaur. The signatures of the accused were obtained on each bottle in such a way that half of it fell on the code number slip and half on the wrapping paper. The spot memo Exhibit PC was also prepared. The signatures of the accused and the attestation of the witness were obtained on the memos Exhibit PA to PC. The food Inspector then prepared the memos in form No. VII with the seal impressions of the seal used and one sealed bottle alongwith copy of form No. VII was also sent to the public analyst, separately by registered post. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst the sample was found coloured with unpermitted yellow coaltar dye. The Food Inspector thus filed this complaint and a copy of the result was also sent to the accused alongwith the forwarding notice. The accused got the second sample sent to the Food Laboratory for analysis and in its report Exhibit PF the Central Food Laboratory also opined that the sample showed the presence of non-permitted coaltardye.

3. On receipt of the complaint the accused was summoned and the statement of Piare Lal Food Inspector, was recorded as PW-1 and a charge-sheet under Section 7/16(1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. Prosecution examined PW-1, Food Inspector and PW-2, Dr. R. K. Sharma Gaur. The report of the Public Analyst, Exhibit PD was tendered into evidence. In the opinion of the Public Analyst, the sample was coloured with unpermitted yellow coaltardye. The report of the Central Food Laboratory, Exhibit PF also gave the same report.

5. The accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. stated that no sample was taken from him and he has no shop in Gau Khana Bazar, Palwal. He also denied to have put signatures on any memo at the instance of the Food Inspector. Accused examined DW-1 Som Nath Aggarwal, Hand-writing expert, who deposed that he compared the alleged signatures of the petitioner on Exhibits PA to PC with his admitted signatures S-l on power of attorney, S-2 on, the statement of the accused and S-3 on the bail bond with the help of the enlarged photographs and found that the disputed signatures on memos Exhibit PA to PC were not written by the writer of signatures on S-l to S-3.

6. Mr. S. D. Bansal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the report of the Public Analyst did not contain any reason for coming to a conclusion as to how the presence o