State v. Nathi Lal — 1956 DIGILAW 83 (ALL)

JUDGMENT Dayal, J. - Nathi Lal respondent was prosecuted on the complaint of the Health Officer, Agra Municipality, of an offence under Section 42, U.P. Pure Food Act, 1950, for having sold adulterated ghee on the 15th of September, 1954, to a Food Inspector of the Agra Municipality. 2. The prosecution led evidence about the purchase of the ghee about sending a sample of it to the Public Analyst to U.P. Government, and filed a certificate received from the Public Analyst. The certificate is reproduced below :- "I, Public Analyst to Government, Uttar Pradesh, do hereby certify that sample of ghee, No. 1331, has been received by me from the Medical Officer of Health, Municipal Board, Agra, on 27-9-54 for analysis. It was examined by me and the result of the analysis is given below: In my opinion this sample is adulterated. In my opinion it contains, in small proportion, fat or oil which is different from pure ghee. This report has been made after making due allowance for all incidental and unavoidable admixtures in the sample. The sample is not of the prescribed standard under the U.P. Pure Food Rules, 1952." 3. The Magistrate trying the accused acquitted him as the report of the Public Analyst did not give any details of analysis or any data of the analysis done by him. The State has therefore, filed this appeal against Nathi Lals acquittal. 4. We have heard the learned Government Advocate in support of the appeal and are of opinion that the appeal should fail. The order of the Magistrate, though not well reasoned, is a correct order. 5. Section 10 of the U.P. Pure Food Act, 1950 is "(1) Every Public Analyst to whom any article of food has been submitted for analysis, shall analyse it as soon as practicable and give the person by whom it was submitted, a certificate specifying the result of his analysis in the form to be prescribed : Provided that no person shall display any such certificate or-any copy thereof at his premises or otherwise use certificate or its copy as an advertisement with a view to increase the sale of the article. (2) In any proceeding under this Act a certificate of Public Analyst given under sub-section ' (1) shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein". 6. (2) In any proceeding under this Act a certificate of Public Analyst given under sub-section ' (1) shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein". 6. Section 47 of the Act is : "(1) The State Government may, after previous publication, make rules for the purposes of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the rules may provide for - (e) prescribing standards of purity of food and determining what, deficiency in any of the normal constituents of any article of food or what addition of extraneous matter shall raise a presumption, until the contrary is proved that such a.food is injurious to health within the meaning of Section 5 or is not of the nature, substance or quality it purports to be within the meaning of Section 4". The State Govt, framed rules under Section 47 and Rule 18 are :- "(a) Ghee shall have a saponification value of not less than 222 and a Reichert-woollney value in the case of ghee prepared from, milk of cow, goat or ewe of not less than 24, in the case of ghee prepared from buffalos milk of not less than 30, and in the case of ghee prepared from mixed milk of not less than 28. (b) No ghee shall contain more than 0.5 per cent of water. (c) Where in a sample of ghee, the proportion of water exceed 0.5 per cent it shall, unless contrary is proved, be deemed for the purposes of the Act that the ghee is not of the prescribed standard by reason of the excessive amount of water therein. (d) Where in any sample of ghee the saponification value and/or Reinsert-Volley value are less than those specified above, it shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed for the purposes of the Act, that the ghee is not of the prescribed standard by reason of the addition thereto of extraneous lat for oil". 7. The main question to determine is what the certificate of analysis referred to in Section 10, clause (l), should contain and of what facts the certificate is made conclusive evidence under sub-section (2) of Section 10. 7. The main question to determine is what the certificate of analysis referred to in Section 10, clause (l), should contain and of what facts the certificate is made conclusive evidence under sub-section (2) of Section 10. The contention for the State is that the certificate of the Public Analyst should give the result of the analysis which means the final conclusion arrived at by the Public Analyst on the basis of his analysing the article of food sent to him and that the statement of such conclusion will be conclusive of the fact expressed in that opinion. In other words, the Public Analyst is simply to say in his certificate that the article of food was pure or adulterated, and that this statement of the Public Analyst would be conclusive evidence of the fact that the article of food was adulterated or pure. The contention for the respondent is that this is not what Section 10 contemplates about the contents of the certificate. The certificate should contain the factual data which the analysis reveals and not merely the opinion of the Public Analyst as to what that data indicates about the nature of the article of food. If the certificate merely gives the final opinion of the Public Analyst and if such an opinion be held to be conclusive evidence about the nature of the article of food, the merit of the case against the accused is really decided by the Public Analyst and not by the Court, the Court just gives its authority to the conclusion of the Public Analyst, and this cannot be position in law. The Court must determine for itself whether the article of food is of the kind alleged by the prosecution and whether the accused has committed any offence on account of selling that article. We agree with the contention for the respondent. 8. In principle no objection can be taken to the view that the decision of facts in issue is to be of the Court on the basis of the evidence produced in Court and that any certificate of the Public Analyst is a piece of evidence produced in the case. It is for the Court to consider that evidence and give due weight to the matters expressed in the certificate. It is for the Court to consider that evidence and give due weight to the matters expressed in the certificate. Section 10(2) of the Act itself does not say that the certificate by the Public Analyst shall be conclusive proof of the nature of the article of food examined. If it had said so the intention of the Legislature would have been clear and would have been that the Court has to determine the nature of the article of food in accordance with what is stated in the certificate of the Public Analyst. Section 10(2) makes the certificate conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. Sub-section (1) of Section 10 requires the Public Analyst to specify the result of his analysis in the certificate. The result of an analysis may be interpreted as equivalent to the opinion of the Public Analyst but surely the opinion of the Public Analyst cannot be taken to be "fact". It therefore appears that the two expressions in sub-secs. (1) and (2) of Section 10 really mean that the certificate should contain the result of the analysis, that is, the factual data obtained on the Public Analyst analysing the article of food and that such data noted in the certificate would be conclusive evidence of the fact that the analysis by the Public Analyst led to those results. It is for the Court then to determine on the basis of other provisions whether that factual data leads to the conclusion that the article of food is adulterated or not. The Public Analyst is not to venture an opinion about the nature of the article. If he does, it is just an aid to the Court and not conclusive about the nature of the article of food. 9. Clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 18 prescribe the standards of purity of ghee. Clauses (c) and (d) of Rule 18 provide that if there is a departure from these standards the ghee would be deemed to be not of the prescribed standard by reason of those departures in the sample of food until the contrary is proved. 9. Clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 18 prescribe the standards of purity of ghee. Clauses (c) and (d) of Rule 18 provide that if there is a departure from these standards the ghee would be deemed to be not of the prescribed standard by reason of those departures in the sample of food until the contrary is proved. These clauses therefore make it abundantly clear that the factual observation of the various contents of the sample of ghee will only raise a certain presumption for the purposes of the case and that it would be still open to the accused to prove to the contrary, that is, that that presumption is not a correct presumption. The accused will be in a position to prove to the contrary only when he knows what factual data has been revealed by the analysis of the article of food at the hands of the Public Analyst. It is therefore clear that the provisions of Rule 18 support the contention for the accused and not for the State and that what the certificate should contain should be the result obtained by the Public Analyst on an examination of the sample of ghee with respect to its saponification value and Reinsert-Woollny value and its water content. If these values and the water content are not within the limits prescribed, the Court will presume the sample of ghee to be not of the prescribed standard, unless the contrary is proved. 10. We are therefore of opinion that the Public Analysts certificate in the present case did not specify what Section 10 required it to specify and what could have been evidence for the consideration of the Court and that therefore the learned Magistrate was correct in the view that no finding can be recorded on the basis of such a certificate that the ghee purchased from the accuseds shop was adulterated ghee. 11. We may also mention that the form of the certificate used by the Public Analyst is not in accordance with the form of certificate prescribed by the Uttar Pradesh Pure Food Rules, 1952, in form No. III. The certificate is really on the old form which was prescribed under the U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1912. The printed form of the certificate can be highly misleading to the Public Analyst in considering what he has to certify. The certificate is really on the old form which was prescribed under the U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1912. The printed form of the certificate can be highly misleading to the Public Analyst in considering what he has to certify. The printed form requires a Public Analyst to express his opinion about the purity of the sample and about the quantity of the extraneous matter being excessive or not in the sample. It appears that the form in the present Act left out those portions of the old form which required the Public Analyst to record his opinion and that this was done in view of what had been held by courts that it is not the business of the Public Analyst to express an opinion about the purity of the article examined, that being the function of the court. It would be better if this misleading form is withdrawn and correct forms supplied to the Public Analyst. 12. We may further point out that the Public Analyst did not fill in one requirement of the prescribed form, and that requirement is with respect to the weight of the sample at the time it was received by the Public Analyst, 13. The Public Analysts certificate in the present case is therefore not even in accordance with the form of the certificate prescribed by the Rules. 14. In view of the above, we are of opinion that this appeal should fail and accordingly dismissed.