Bedi, J.:— This revision is directed against the order of Shri Gurdev Singh, Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dated the 4th February, 1960, confirming that of Shri Thakar Dass, Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, dated the 7th December, 1959, by which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default to undergo-three months' rigorous imprisonment under section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
2. The story for the prosecution briefly runs as under. On the 31st October, 1958, Shri J.R Nayyar, Municipal Food Inspector, Ludhiana, visited the shop of the petitioner and purchased three Chhatanks of Bandhani Hing as sample for which he issued the receipt. Exhibit P.B, after having given the notice, Exhibit P.A to the petitioner. The sample was divided into three parts, properly sealed and one of the sealed samples was left with the petitioner. Out of the remaining two, one was sent to the Public Analyst who reported that the sample was adulterated as it contained resins and grit.
3. During the course of the trial at the instance of the petitioner the sealed sample, which was in his possession, was sent for analysis to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, who also reported that the sample was adulterated by reason of presence therein of extraneous grits, chalk and colophony resin. The petitioner was accordingly convicted and sentenced as indicated above.
4. The facts in this case are not in dispute. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the two reports mentioned above—one by Shri B.D Kochhar, Public Analyst, Punjab, and the other by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta—placed on the file are incomplete and do not give sufficient data to show that the sample in question was adulterated. In this connection he cited The State v. Shanti Parkash . 1957 59 P.L.R 17.. That was an appeal decided by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Falshaw and Kapur JJ., in which the report of the Analyst was that the sample of turmeric sent to him was highly adulterated with extraneous vegetable matter. The report of the Analyst in that case was considered to be insufficient by the Hon'ble Judges as it did not indicate what was the extent of impurity and its nature. On this evidence the Hon'ble Judges thought it unsafe to convict the accused and, therefore, accepted his appeal and acquitted him. In the same case, dealing with another appeal by the State against the same accused, it was held by the Hon'ble Judges that the sample must be taken to be adulterated with extraneous matters as the mixture of ash with any substance must fall within the meaning of the word “adulteration” both under parts (i) and (iii) of section 4 of the Punjab Pure Food Act of 1929, and the accused was guilty of an offence under section 13, of the Act. The Hon'ble Judges further remarked that what is required for conviction under this Act is that there should be diminution of nutritive or beneficial properties of food, or there must be mixture with a substance of lower commercial value than such food in a pure and normal state. The petitioner's counsel also cited Gurcharan Das v. The State . 1957 59 P.L.R 89., in which the abovementioned ruling was followed. Besides these authorities, the counsel also relied on Din Dayal v. State . A.I.R 1956 All. 520., which lays down that “where the report of the Public Analyst does not give any data of the quantitative analysis, the report cannot be adequately tested and must be rejected. The ipse dixit of the Public Analyst that a certain sample of ghee is adulterated’ or ‘grossly adulterated’ and does not conform to the standard, ought not to be accepted by a Court unless and until the Public Analyst gives the data from which it can be ascertained in what respects the sample is different from the standard. No person ought to be put in peril of a punishment on such a written report which fails to furnish the data and which is not given on oath and untested by cross-examination.” In that authority Happu v. Emperor . A.I.R 1933 All 837., was also referred. The counsel further cited State v. Sahati Ram . A.I.R 1958 All 34., which is also to the same effect. Besides the above authorities, the counsel also cited Behram Sheriar Irani…Accused v. Emperor . A.I.R 1944 Bom. 321..
5. Now we have to see whether the above authorities apply to the facts of the present case. In this case the report of the Public Analyst, Punjab, shows that the sample concerned contained resins and grit, and was, therefore, adulterated. The report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, shows that the sample in question was adulterated by reason of presence therein of extraneous grits, chalk and colophony resin. It was, however, not mentioned in the reports as to what was the quantity of these foreign substances present in the sample. Under the circumstances, in view of the authorities mentioned above, we cannot depend on these incomplete reports and hold that the substance in question was definitely an adulterated one. The petitioner is, therefore, given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted.
6. Petition accepted.