Judgment 1. Judgment dated 26/11/1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, rupnagar dismissing the appeal of balmukand (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) against the judgment dated 5/7/1993 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial magistrate, Kharar convicting him under Section 16 (l) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been assailed by way of this petition. 2. The prime question raised by the counsel for the petitioner in this case is, whether the Paper Chromatography Test, in order to detect the non-permitted colouring material was a sure test and whether such report in case of sample of Badana could be treated as sufficient to maintain the conviction of the accused. 3. The brief facts, essential for disposal of the petition are that on 26-3-1991 at 3.25 p. m. Manoj Kumar, Food Inspector along with other officials by reaching Bus Stand, kharar purchased 900 grams of Badana against Rs.18/-. After issuing a notice in form No. VI, as prescribed under the Rules, the contents of the sample were made homogenous and, thereafter, separated into three equal portions, each portion was put in three dry clean glass bottles; the paper slips bearing the code and signatures of local Health Authority were pasted on the wrappers on each part of the sample lengthwise covering the mouth and bottom of the sample and joining its ends. After completing the formalities, sample was first sent to public Analyst, Punjab, Jallandhar, and thereafter, to Central Food Laboratory, mysore, which vide its report Ex. PK dated 12-6-1999 found to be adulterated. The relevant part of the report is reproduced below:- 3_1084_CrLJ0_2008.htm 4. Consequently, a complaint was filed. The Food Inspector examined himself (Manoj kumar) as P. W.1, Harish Chander (P. W.2), mohinder Singh (P. W.3) and Dr. Rajinder Singh (P. W.4 ). 5. The petitioner denied all the allegations in his statement under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in defence examined Pal Singh (D. W.1) and mohan Lal (D. W.2 ). The trial ended in conviction and the appeal was also dismissed. 6. Petitioners counsel has made challenge to the impugned judgment, on the grounds; firstly that no standard of Badana sweet has been provided in the Act and, therefore, the Court could not convict the accused on the ground that the sweet was adulterated in view of the presence of coal tar dye in the Badana. 6. Petitioners counsel has made challenge to the impugned judgment, on the grounds; firstly that no standard of Badana sweet has been provided in the Act and, therefore, the Court could not convict the accused on the ground that the sweet was adulterated in view of the presence of coal tar dye in the Badana. Secondly, the director, Central Food Laboratory did not properly analyse the food, so as to reach the conclusion that the food was adulterated, and the chromatography spot test was not a sure test to reach the conclusion that unpermitted coal tar dye was used. In support of his argument, he has relied upon the following direct judgments on the issue :- Mohinder Pal V/s. The State of Punjab, 1986 (II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 147; Shri Klshan V/s. State of Rajasthan, 1992 (2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 1; Girraj Parshad V/s. The State of Haryana, vol. XX 1993 The Criminallaw Times 430; state of Haryana (Govt. Food Inspector) V/s. Rattan Lal, Vol. XX 1993 The Criminal Law times 79; and Maya Ram V/s. The State of punjab, 1987 (II) Prevention of food Adulteration Cases 320. 7. Having gone through the aforesaid judgments and the arguments, addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis thereof, I find some substance in the same. After taking into consideration some previous decisions, Honbte Mr. Justice S. S. Diwan in Mohlnder Pals case (supra)in para 4 of its judgment observed as under :- "4. Sandhawalia, C. J. in Lekh Raj V/s. The state, 1980 (II) FAC 166 while dealing with a case in which fruit cream was said to be adulterated following M. V. Krishnan nambissans case (1966 Cri LJ 1347) (supra)and Hari Shankar Benerji V/s. Corporation of Calcutta 1984 (1) FAC 58 : (1973 Cri lj 1264) and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kanshi Ram, 1972 FAC 41, held that fruit cream not being ice-cream and no standard for fruit-cream having been prescribed, no yardstick was available by which to judge the purity or otherwise of the product taken from the petitioner therein and in the absence of a prescribed standard, no conviction was possible, both on principle or on precedent. " After the afore-quoted observation, the single Judge held that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence as there is no standard prescribed for badana under the Act. Again, honble Mr. " After the afore-quoted observation, the single Judge held that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence as there is no standard prescribed for badana under the Act. Again, honble Mr. Justice G. S. Singhvi in Shri kishans case (supra), while dealing with the case of Laddoo of motichur and referring to the decision in case M. V. Krishna namibissan V/s. State of Kerala.1979 (1) FAC 72 : (1966 Cri LJ 1347) (SC) and various other judgments observed as under :- "section 16 of the Act provides for penalties for different types of offences. Sec.23 empowers the Central Government to make rules in order to carry out the provisions of the Act. In exercise of that power the Central Government has framed provisions of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Rule 5 of these Rules specified the standards of quality of various articles of food which are specified in Appendix b appended to the Rules. Appendix b in turn refers to the standards of quality of the various food articles. A perusal of the entire appendix b shows that motichur Laddoo is not one of the food article:. . . . . unless thestandard is prescribed of a particular food article in Appendix b a person cannot be prosecuted for an offence of having manufactured or sold adulterated food. " Now, coming to the next question, chromatography test cannot be said to be sufficient and sure test for holding that unpermitted coal tar dye was detected. A similar view was taken in Maya Rams case (supra), wherein, the following observation has been made :- "4. Part VI of the Prevention of Food adulteration Rules, 1955 covers the subject colouring matter. Rule 23 specifically prohibits the addition of colouring matter to any article of food as permitted by these Rules. Rule 28 provides that coal tars (food colours)are permitted to be used which are provided in the columns in the table, which is part of the rule. So far as the red dye is concerned, there are five classes being Ponceau 4 R, carmoisine, Fast Red E, Maranth, Erythrosine, and each of them has been assigned colouring index, as also chemical classification. In the instant case, the Public Analyst has opined that there was a red non-permitted basic coal tar dye. But his opinion, as is plain, is based on two tests, macroscopic examination and detection of colouring matter. In the instant case, the Public Analyst has opined that there was a red non-permitted basic coal tar dye. But his opinion, as is plain, is based on two tests, macroscopic examination and detection of colouring matter. So far as the first test is concerned, that has not and could not reveal the chemical composition of the coal tar dye. The second test pertaining to colouring matter has been done by resorting to four methods i. e. wool double dyeing method, either acetic acid method, paper chromatographic method and oil soluble coal tar dye method. Except for the third method employed, i. e. paper chromatography, the other methods have not brought forward any positive and categoric result. So far as paper chromatography is concerned, the same could not bring forward whether the coal tar dye used was permissible or non-permissible. The ordinary dictionary meaning of chromatography is that it is a method of separating substances in a mixture which depend on selective absorption, partition between non-mixing solvents, etc. and which present the substances as a chromatogram, such as a series of visible bands in a vertical tube. And the word chromatic is meant to pertain to, or consisting of colours. Thus, paper chromatography would reveal that there is present food colouring on coal tardye. 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 had 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 days 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 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 the public Analyst is just an expert and his opinion evidence should normally be clear and unambiguous so that it is understandable, if not to all, at least a sizable section of the people who are non-experts. It is to be borne in mind that the public Analyst is just an expert and his opinion evidence should normally be clear and unambiguous so that it is understandable, if not to all, at least a sizable section of the people who are non-experts. " The afore-quoted judgment was followed in Giriraj Parshads case (supra) and Rattan Lais case (supra ). 8 Thus, on examination of the aforesaid law, as laid down in various Judgments, it would not be unsafe to conclude that paper chromatography test is not sufficient to conclude whether permitted or unpermitted coal tar dye has been used. The expert has to examine carefully the colouring matter by applying various tests by excluding the use of permitted colours, before reaching the conclusion to detect the unpermitted coal tar dye. 9. Having perused the impugned judgment, the same appears to have been passed on assumptions and presumptions. The aforesaid aspects of the case were not taken note of. Consequently, the interference in the impugned judgment has become inevitable. 10. For the foregoing reasons. I hereby accept the petition, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the petitioner of the charge framed against him. Fine, if paid, be refunded. Petition allowed.