(1) The facts giving rise to this revision are as under. On 18th of May 1963 Shri Sewa Singh P. W., Food Inspector Amritsar went to the shop of the petitioners along with other persons and purchased a sample of ground red chillies which the petitioners had kept for sale at his shop. This was sent in due course to the Public Analyst and was found to be adulterated vide his report dated 11th of July 1963(Exhibit P. F. ) A report against the petitioners was lodged and he was sent up for trial under S. 13 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954. The trial was held by Shri N. K. Jain Magistrate First Class Amristar who found the charge proved against the pet convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine the petitioners was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The petitioners approached the sessions Court in appeal against fire 1964 although the sentence imposed upon the petitioners was reduced to a fine of Rs. 50/-, only.
(2) The facts in this case are not decided. The learned counsel for the petitioners has however contended that he case against the petitioners is not free form doubt. He admitted that the presence of some amount of coal-tar dye is objectionable and is prohibited in such substances but in view of R. 28 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 coal-tar dues of a particular kind may be permitted. He drew my attention the report of the Public Analyst (Exhibit P. F. ). I however find that the argument of the petitioners counsel has no force for the reason that the first sentence of the report is--
'Prohibited yellow coal-tar dye found which evidently means that the coal-tar dye found in the sample was of prohibited type.
(3) He then pointed out to me that the quantity of the coal-tar dye found in the sample had not been specified and in view of Gurbux Rai v. The State which was reported in 1961-63 Pun L R 37 the petitioners deserves the benefit of the doubt and acquittal. But if once we come to the conclusion that it was the prohibited yellow coal-tar dye which was found in the sample the argument of the petitioners counsel falls to the ground in view of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sat Pal Kappor reported in 1962-64 Pun L R 799: (AIR 1962 Punj 524). In this it was held that it was not necessary in every case for the Public Analyst to state the exact quantity of foreign substances happens to be one the presence of which is absolutely prohibited in that particular article of food it would be unnecessary to state the quantity.
(4) The next argument taken by the petitioners counsel was that the bottle in which the sample was taken not clean and might have contained some coal-tar dye. Unfortunately however no question stated that the bottles of this case were sent to him after cleaning the same which he had kept in office and used in this case. The petitioners counsel contended that the person who actually cleaned the bottles should have been examined by the persecution. But his argument on the face of it seems to be fallacious.
(5) No other argument was raised before me.
(6) For the reasons given above. I see no substance in this revision and dismiss the same.
(7) Revision dismissed.