Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS I have heard the learned counsel for appellant, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent and have gone through the trial court record and relevant provisions of law, carefully. I have also gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant.

The contention on behalf of the appellant is that the Public Analyst has given the report Ex. PW1/E with regard to the sample of red chili powder taken on 23.1.90 received in his office on the next date ie 24.1.90 and he has given report dated 31.1.90 stating that the living or dead insects were found in the sample sent for analysis. The contention is that the Food Inspector while taking the sample of red chili powder has neither disclosed in the documents prepared at the spot, viz. Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/C nor the respondent/complainant's witnesses have stated in their statements that there were insects in the sample collected by them, so the inference is that at the time of taking sample there was no living or dead insects in it or otherwise Food Inspector must have disclosed this fact in the documents prepared at the spot or statements made before the court. The second inference is that the correct/true sample was not sent for analysis by Public Analyst.

7. The Director Central Food Laboratory recorded that there were three live insects and seven dead insects along with 11 dead insects larva. Again, there is nothing in the report of the Director that these insects were detected after microscopic examination. In so far as the standard of alcoholic acidity was concerned, the Director has very specifically mentioned in his report that this alcoholic acidity was subject to increase from the date of drawl of sample and its ultimate analysis in the laboratory, meaning thereby, that increase, if any, in alcoholic acidity could be attributed to the lapse of time which took place between taking of the sample and the analysis by the Director. This aspect of the opinion appears to be correct one, inasmuch as on 23rd day of June, 1981, when the Public Analyst analysed the sample, the alcoholic acidity was found to be 0.08% within the prescribed limit and the Director analysed the sample on 24th of October, 1981, say after a period of about five months after the taking of the sample and the likelihood of alcoholic acidity having been increased on the basis of the opinion given by the Director himself could not be ruled out."

It was also held that on the basis of the aforesaid circumstances, the likelihood of insects having been cropped up during the transit period also could not be ruled out, especially when it has been noticed in the two reports referred to above that the earlier report contained less insects, while the later report contained more dead and living insects, which could also lead to this inference that by the passage of time, these insects dead or alive have been cropped up in the sample and in this background , the possibility of sample being insect free at the time of taking sample cannot be ruled out.

7. The Director Central Food Laboratory recorded that there were three live insects and seven dead insects along with 11 dead insects larva. Again, there is nothing in the report of the Director that these insects were detected after microscopic examination. In so far as the standard of alcoholic acidity was concerned, the Director has very specifically mentioned in his report that this alcoholic acidity was subject to increase from the date of drawl of sample and its ultimate analysis in the laboratory, meaning thereby, that increase, if any, in alcoholic acidity could be attributed to the lapse of time which took place between taking of the sample and the analysis by the Director. This aspect of the opinion appears to be correct one, inasmuch as on 23rd day of June, 1981, when the Public Analyst analysed the sample, the alcoholic acidity was found to be 0.08% within the prescribed limit and the Director analysed the sample on 24th of October, 1981, say after a period of about five months after the taking of the sample and the likelihood of alcoholic acidity having been increased on the basis of the opinion given by the Director himself could not be ruled out."