Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 385 (PNJ)

Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana

2000-04-05

S.S.SUDHALKAR

body2000
JUDGMENT S.S. Sudhalkar, J. (Oral) - This judgment will dispose of both the aforementioned criminal revisions. 2. A complaint for adulteration in barfi was filed against the petitioner Dalip Singh. In the trial, petitioner Kartar Singh appeared as a defence witness and stated that the shop belonged to him. He was also, therefore, added as an accused and the trial was conducted against both the petitioners de novo by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak. Both the petitioners were found to be guilty of offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for having barfi item which was adulterated for sale. They filed appeals against the said conviction and judgment. Both the appeals were dismissed and hence they have filed these revision petitions. None has appeared for the petitioners and I have heard Mr. Chetan Dass, learned District Attorney of the State. 3. The say of the petitioner Kartar Singh that he was given some intoxicant and because of that he made a statement in favour of petitioner Dalip Singh in the trial Court (before he was added as an accused), has not been accepted by the Courts below and even I do not find any reason to accept that say. 4. However, it can be seen that in the appeal memo, the petitioners have relied on the case of Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1986(II) F.A.C. 158, in which this Court has followed the earlier judgment in the case of Maya Ram v. State of Punjab, Crl. Rev. No. 705 of 1981 decided on 15.7.1983. Reliance on this judgment has been made because as per the report of the Public Analyst Ex. PD in the trail Court, the sample was also coloured with unpermitted blue V.R.S. coal tar dye. It is mentioned that the sample contained permitted colour tartrazine and unpermitted blue V.R.S. coal tar dye. The test for examining the sample was a test for colour by paper chromatography, as per report Ex.PD. 5. Petitioners have contended that by the test of paper chromatography, it cannot be opined that whether the coal tar dye was permitted or unpermitted and it will only show presence of the coal tar dye. 6. In the case of Ravinder Kumar (supra), some observations by this Court in the case of Maya Ram (supra) have been quoted. It will be proper to quote them in this judgment also. 6. In the case of Ravinder Kumar (supra), some observations by this Court in the case of Maya Ram (supra) have been quoted. It will be proper to quote them in this judgment also. They are as under :- "Thus, the paper chromatography would reveal that there is present food colouring on coal tar dye. But on that test to conclude that it was permitted or non-permitted is rather begging the question. No other data is available on the Public Analysts report as to how he was come to the conclusion that the coal tar dye was non-permitted. It has already been noticed that Rule 28 permits use of coal tar dye. The Public Analyst should have excluded in his opinion the possibility of all the five permitted coal tar dyes pertaining to red colour. As is plain, no such effort was made. Thus, the report of the Public Analyst cannot be taken as the gospel truth and outweigh normal judicial balancing. If the courts were to blindly follow the report of the Public Analyst, then to my mind it would be in the nature of abdication of judicial functions. It is to be borne in mind that a Public Analyst is just an expert and his opinion evidence should normally be clear and unambiguous so that it is understandable, if not be all, at least to a sizable section of the people who are non-experts." 7. Here also, there is no other data available as to how the Public Analyst has come to the conclusion that the coal tar dye was a non-permitted one. 8. It may be mentioned that Rule 28 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, which was in force at the relevant time when the sample was taken, i.e. in the year 1980, was further amended in the year 1994 w.e.f. 6.9.1994 and there was correction made by the notification dated 4.9.1995. The Rule which is prevalent today is as under :- "28. Synthetic colours which may be used. - No synthetic food colour or a mixture thereof except the following shall be used in food. Colour, Common name, Colour Index, Chemical Class 1. xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx 2. xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx 3. Blue, Indigo Carmine, 73015, Indigoid,Brillant Blue FCF, 42090, Triarylmethane 4. xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx" 9. Synthetic colours which may be used. - No synthetic food colour or a mixture thereof except the following shall be used in food. Colour, Common name, Colour Index, Chemical Class 1. xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx 2. xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx 3. Blue, Indigo Carmine, 73015, Indigoid,Brillant Blue FCF, 42090, Triarylmethane 4. xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx" 9. By the amendment of 1994, the opening words "coal tar food colours" were amended as "Synthetic colours" and "Synthetic Food Colour" in the title and the body of the Rule. 10. In view of this position, the case of Maya Ram (supra) will be directly applicable to the present case. When this is the position, on this point alone, I find that the conviction of the petitioners cannot be upheld. This is a question of law and the facts are clear on records. 11. In view of the above facts, I do not go to consider the other defences taken in the revision memos. 12. As a result, these revision petitions are allowed. The judgment and conviction of sentence against the petitioners are set aside and the petitioners are acquitted of the offence for which they are tried. Fine, if paid, is ordered to be refunded. Petitions allowed.