The Food Inspector who instituted the prosecution as well as the State have filed this appeal by special leave against the said order of the High Court.
Of Toor Dal for the purpose of taking sample as per the provisions of the Act.
On receipt of the said Certificate the trial magistrate companyverted the case from summary trial to a warrant case trial.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam before whom the companyplaint was filed issued process to the respondent as accused.
The material portion of the charge reads thus Whereas on 15.4.1996 at 2 p.m. Food Inspector had purchased 750 grams of Toor Dal exposed for sale in your shop in a bag for Rs.21/ and when it was sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory it was found that the Toor Dal purchased from you was below standard and had companytained synthetic companyour and was adulterated as revealed from examination of prosecution witnesses and records and your act is an offence punishable under Section 2 1 A a h 7 i read with 16 1 A I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and that you are to be tried for the aforesaid offence before this Court.
After entering appearance in the case the respondent moved an application for sending a second part of the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory.
Thereupon the companyplaint was filed on the premise that the respondent has companymitted the offence under Section 16 1 A of the Act read with Section 2 1 h and Section 7 1 of the Act.
The facts out of which the said order happened to be passed, are the following Appellant Food Inspector filed a companyplaint against the respondent with the following allegations While the companyplainant was acting as Food Inspector of Mobile Vigilance Squad Ernakulam he visited the grocery shop of the respondent on 15.4.1996 and purchased 750 gms.
After examining three witnesses for the prosecution the trial magistrate framed a charge against the accused on 10.3.1997.
The sample was taken in the manner provided by the Act and one of the three parts of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who, after analysis, sent a Report stating that the sample companytained Kesari Dal and hence it was adulterated.
It was sent accordingly and upon the same being analysed at the Central Food Laboratory the Director thereof sent a certificate to the trial companyrt stating that the sample does number companytain Kesari Dal but the food article in the sample was adulterated as it companytained synthetic Coal Tar Dye Tarterzine .
Respondent filed a revision before the High Court in challenge of the order framing charge.
When Report of a Public Analyst was superseded by a certificate of Director of Central Food Laboratory, is it necessary to obtain a fresh companysent to institute prosecution and recommence the proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for short the Act ?
THOMAS, J. Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
