JUDGMENT R. L. Khurana, J.) (Oral):- Respondent Balraj Khosla upon have been tried for the offence under Section 16(l)(a) (i) of the Frevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- vide judgment dated 27.6.91. In default of payment of fine, the respondent was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month. On an appeal having been preferred by the respondent before the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, the conviction and sentence imposed upon him was set- aside and he was acquitted of the offence vide judgment dated 4.3.92. 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the prosecution of the respondent are these. The Food Inspector Sh. Jagat Ram on 15.3.89 visited the shop of respondent at Subhash Chowk, Dalhousie. He purchased 600 grams of "coco-nut Barfi" from the respondent as sample for the purpose of analysis. The sample so purchased was divided into three parties and put into three neat, clean dry bottles which were labeled, fastened corked and sealed as per the procedure laid down under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. One of the sealed part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Kandaghat, who found the same to be adulterated as it contained "a red basic coal tar dye other than prescribed present and that the use of unauthorized coal tar dyes in an article of food is injurious to health". 3. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent of the offence charged against him on two grounds, namely, the sanction accorded by the Local Health Authority for the prosecution of the respondent was not valid, and. that the report of the Public Analyst was bad and could not be relied upon inasmuch as it did not contain the type/kind of the red coal tar dye used. 4. Assuming for the same of arguments that the sanction Ext. PH accorded by the Local Health Authority for the prosecution of the respondent is valid the acquittal of the respondent as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge on the second ground does not call for any interference. 4. Assuming for the same of arguments that the sanction Ext. PH accorded by the Local Health Authority for the prosecution of the respondent is valid the acquittal of the respondent as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge on the second ground does not call for any interference. Rule -28 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955, lays down that no coal-tar food-colour or a mixture thereof except the following shall be used in food Sl. No. Colour Common name Colour Index (1956) Chemical Class. 1. Red Ponceau 4 R 16255 Azo Carmoisine HTM Azo Fast Red 16045 Azo Amaranth 16185 Azo Erythrosine 45430 Xanthene 2. Yellow Tartrazine 19)40 Pyrazolone Sunset Yellow 159S5 Azo 3. Blue Indigo Carmine 73015 Indigoid Brilliant Blue 42C-90 Triarylmethane FCF 4. Green Green S 44C90 Triarylmethane Fast Green FCF 42059 Triarylmethane. The above quoted Rule thus permits the use of five types/kinds of red coal- tar food colours report of the Public Analyst. The operative part thereof, reads:- "I further certify that I have/have caused to be analysed the aforementioned sample and declare the result of my analysis to be as follows:- 1. Added colouring matter = A read basic coal tar dye other than prescribed is present. 2. Butyro-refractometer reading at 40 C= 36.0 and am of the opinion that a red basic coal tar dye other than prescribed present. The use of coal-tar dyes other than prescribed in an article of food is injurious to health." 5. Though the Public Analyst has opined that a coal-tar day other than the one prescribed was found present in the sample, he has not further specified the type/kind of the red coal-tar dye found in the sample. In view of the fact that the Rule perm its five type/kinds of red coal-tar dye. It was incumbent upon the Public Analyst to further state as to which type of red coal-tar dye was found by him in the sample at the time of analysis. The absence of an opinion on the part of the Public Analyst would entitled the respondent to acquittal. 6. In Ravinder Kumar v. The State of Haryana, (1986 (II) F.A.C. 158), involving the sample of Patisa, It was opined by the Public Analyst that non-permitted yellow basic coal tar dye was present therein. The absence of an opinion on the part of the Public Analyst would entitled the respondent to acquittal. 6. In Ravinder Kumar v. The State of Haryana, (1986 (II) F.A.C. 158), involving the sample of Patisa, It was opined by the Public Analyst that non-permitted yellow basic coal tar dye was present therein. It was held by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana that in the absence of necessary data as to how the Public Analyst had come to the conclusion that the coal-tar dye found in the sample was not permitted, no reliance can be placed thereon. It was further held that since Rule 28 permits the use of coal-tar dye, the Public Analyst should have excluded in his opinion the possibility of all the permitted coal-tar dyes pertaining to red colour to the similar effect. It has been held in Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1990 F.A.J. 7) involving the sample of Besan Laddoo 7. The ratio laid down by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana is applicable to the facts of the present case on all fours. In the present case as well, the Public Analyst has not ruled out the possibility of a permitted coal-tar dye of red colour having been used in the present case by giving the necessary date of the coal-tar dye found in the sample, and, as such, the learned Sessions Judge, has rightly ignored the report of the Public Analyst while recording the acquittal of the respondent of the offence charged against him. 8. Resultantly, the present appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds of the respondent shall stand cancelled and discharged. -