The learned Munsiff Magistrate (J), 1st Class, Tezpur, in C. R. Case No 368 of 1979 acquitted the respondent, Subkaran of the charge under section 7 r/s 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, for short the 'Act' on the ground, inter alia that a fresh consent under section 20(1) of the Act is required after the certificate dated 7.7.1979 of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory; hence appeal to this Court. 2. The allegations in the complaint against the respondent is that on 20.2.1979, the Area Food Inspector Tezpur, purchased about 600 gm. of Dhania powder for Rs. 2.40 from the respondent; and that the public analyst has given an opinion that 'Dhania powder' is adulterated as it contains approximately 30% foreign pulse and millet starch; and that the respondent has committed an offence under section 7 r/w section 16 (1)(a) (ii) of the Act manufacturing for sale, storing for sale and selling 'Dhania powder' which is adulterated under section 2(ia)(a)(c) of the Act. 3. The relevant portion of the consent dated 23.5.79 (Ext. 10) under section 20(1) of the Act reads : "....Sri H. Gogoi, Area Food Inspector, Tezpur under the authority vested upon me vide Govt. order No. MPH 122/67/113 dt. 9.8.61 to institute prosecution against the following offender under section 7 read with section 16 of the PFA Act for offence of manufacturing for sale, storing for sale and selling adulterated Dhania powder for human consumption as it is adulterated u/s. 2(ia)(a)(c) of the PFA Act due to presence of approx. 30 percent foreign pulse and millet starch. 4. The certificate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory dated 7.7.79 (Ext. 15) in respect of the sample of the 'Dhania powder' shows : "Physical examination : Free from insect infestation and mould growth. Moisture : 5-5 % Tolal Ash 7-4 % Ash insoluble in dil HCL : 1.0% Coaltar dye : Absent Microscopically Exmn. : Dhania with plenty of pulse and turmeric structure present. OPINION : The sample of Dhania is adulterated u/s. 2(ia)(m)." 5. The learned Magistrate framed charge against the accused respondent on 15.12.79 after the receipt of the certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. There is no fresh sanction or allegation against the accused relating to the offence disclosed in the certificate of the director of the Central Food Laboratory. 6.
The learned Magistrate framed charge against the accused respondent on 15.12.79 after the receipt of the certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. There is no fresh sanction or allegation against the accused relating to the offence disclosed in the certificate of the director of the Central Food Laboratory. 6. The question which arises for consideration is what would be the affect of the certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory in the present case. 7. In State of Gujarat vs. Ambalal, 1987 Cri. L. J, 1036: (1978)2 FAC 53, a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court has held that where consent was given for prosecution or selling milk on the basis of the report of the public analyst that sample was deficient in fact contents, but the later report from the Director, Central Food Laboratory showed that the deficiency was not with respect to fat, but was with respect to solid non-fats, no fresh consent was necessary as in either case the offence was sale of sub-standard milk. 8. In State of Mahrastra vs. Nizamuddin, (1978)2 FAC 136; 1979 Cri. L.J. 274, the Bombay High Court has held that the certificate of the Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of a public analyst, a charge will have to be framed in terms of the Central Food Laboratory certificate and the Court cannot do so unless there is sanction for the offence disclosed by the certificate of the Central Food Laboratory. 9. In Municipal Board vs. Raghunanda Ram 1979(1) FAC 256, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that conviction on the basis of the report of the public analyst is bad after the certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for the reason that the ground for prosecution in the complaint based on the report of the public analyst was negative by the certificate of the Director, therefore the bottom was knocked. out of the prosecution case as stated in the complaint, and the liability eventually was sought to be fastened on the accused is on an entirely different ground not mentioned in the complaint. 10.
out of the prosecution case as stated in the complaint, and the liability eventually was sought to be fastened on the accused is on an entirely different ground not mentioned in the complaint. 10. Turning to the case in hand, the allegation in the complaint basing on the consent under section 20(1) of the Act and the report of the public analyst is that the accused respondent has connected an offence under section 7 r/w section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act for manufacturing for sale, storing for sale and selling 'Dhania' provider which is adulterated under section 2(ia)(a)(c) of the Ajit at Dhania contains approximately 30% of foreign pulse and millet starch. The accused respondent was called upon by the Magistrate to meet those allegations in the complaint based on the report of the public analyst But in the certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory it is stated that the sample of the 'Dhania' powder is adulterated under section 2(ia) (m) of the Act as it is not within the prescribed limits. Under section 13(3) of the Act, the certificate issued by the Director, Central Food Laboratory (Ext. 15) has superseded the report of the public analyst (Ext 10). Therefore, the report of the public analyst become nonest. The accused respondent cannot be charged on the non-existing facts. Therefore, the prosecution must fail. 11. The facts in State of Gujarat vs. Ambala (Supra), are different from the facts in the present case. In that case charge against the accused was for sale of sub-standard milk that is, below the prescribed standard, and the certificate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory did not substantially change the report of the public analyst. In the case in hand the allegations in the complaint have been entirely made non-existent by the certificate of the Director. Therefore, the decision of the Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat (Supra) has no application to the present case with great respect agree with decisions arrived at by the High Court of Bombay and Allahabad. 12. In view of my conclusion above, I am not inclined to deal with the facts although I may disagree with the learned-Magistrate on the findings of the facts. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.