The report of the Public Analyst should provide a clear statement of the prohibited yellow coal tar dye found in the sample, as well as the grounds for the opinion, to support a conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

S.S.Dewan, J.

1. This petition Is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, dated March 4, 1986, whereby he affirmed the judgment of the trial Magistrate convicting the petitioner for an offence under Section 16(1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, the Act) and sentencing him to undergo R I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for three months.

2. The facts of the case are that Shri H.R. Khanna, Government Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. B.S. Dahiya, Deputy Chief Medical Officer. (Health) visited the premises of Rajinder Kumar petitioner and he was found in possession of 10 kgs of Besan Ke Laddus. After completing the formalities, the Food Inspector purchased 1500 grams of Besan Ke Laddus, against a payment of Rs. 18/- for analysis. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst vide his report Ex. PD found the sample to be adulterated as it contained unpermitted yellow basic coal tar-dye. Upon a complaint having been lodged the petitioner was tried under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Act. The petitioner was convicted by the trial Court as aforesaid. He unsuccessfully appealed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, who affirmed his conviction, hence this petition.

3. Mr. R.S. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and the trial Magistrate were in error convicting the petitioner on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst. His argument is that the Public Analyst has not given the name of the prohibited yellow coal tar dye found in the sample. According to Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, permitted coal tar dyes can be used in sweets. The permitted yellow coal tar dyes are Tartrazine and Sunset Yellow FCF. The report of the Public Analyst is in evidence in the case and is itself sufficient for convicting the accused but the report of the Public Analyst should be supported by a clear statement of what he noticed and on what grounds he based his opinion. He should also give all materials which induced him to come to his conclusion so that the Court may form its own judgment on these materials. In the instant case, the Public Analyst has simply mentioned that the sample was coloured with a prohibited yellow coal far dye. He has not cared to find out as to which that prohibited yellow coal tar dye was since two types of yellow coal tar dyes can be used in sweets, so it is difficult to say as to whether the sample taken from the petitioner contained any of these two kinds of yellow coallardy or not. In this state of affairs, it cannot be definitely said that the sweets sold by the petitioner contained any prohibited yellow coal tar dye. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to hold that the order of conviction and sentence will have to be set aside and the petitioner will have to be acquitted of the offence charged and it is ordered accordingly. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner.