Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. It is further averred that at the time of sampling, the accused did not make any request to the FSO for sending one counterpart of the sample to the NABL accredited laboratory for testing. That on 01.11.2013, one counter part of the sample Digitally signed by PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI JOSHI Date:

2026.03.11 16:28:00 +0530 bearing DO Code No. 10/DO-07/4326 in intact condition and in sealed packet with copy of the memo in form VI and another copy of memo in form VI in a separate sealed packet were sent to the Food Analyst Delhi. That the other two counter parts were deposited with the DO in intact condition in a sealed packet along with two copies of memo in form VI. That the Food Analyst analyzed the sample and found that the sample was unsafe because total dye content of the synthetic colour used exceeded the prescribed maximum limit of 100 ppm. The sample was also found to be containing aluminium leaves which were injurious to health.
"As no specification is laid down for khoya Roll a prepared Food Article) under the Food Safety and standards( Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regur, 2011.the sample was analysed for General Provisions under the Act and Rules.
And I am of the Opinion that the sample is "Unsafe" as defined under section 3(1) (zz) (v) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 as it does not conform to the standards laid down for Food Article under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Rules, 2011 thereof, in that:
2026.03.11 16:29:07 +0530 direction."

13. Therefore, on the directions of Ld. Session Court, Director RFL was summoned by the complainant/Department for evidence. Accordingly, Sh. Dr. Devendra J Haware, Sr. Principal Scientist, RFL, Mysore was examined as PW-3 who was deputed by Dr. Giridhar P, Director, Referral Food Laboratory Mysore to depose in the present case. He deposed that he has examined more than 1000s of samples in the lab. That the RFL report dated 04.03.2014 Ex. PW1/1 was prepared by Sh. Alok Kumar Srivastava, Director, Referral Food Laboratory Mysore. That as per report, the sample of 'Khoya Roll' was received in the lab on 10.02.2014 and the same was analyzed/examined and the sample was unsafe due to the presence of aluminium foil. That as per record, the sample was tested/analyzed as per 'Inorganic chemistry by Vogel'. That for the test of aluminum, they referred textbook of Vogel's of Quantitative Inorganic Analysis wherein the method of determination of aluminium at page No. 449 of Gravimetry XI, 25/26 is mentioned. The photocopy of the book Ex. PW3/1(running into three pages) was produced by the witness and the exhibition was objected by Ld. Counsel for the accused as original was not produced. That the then Director Sh. Alok Kumar Srivastava, RFL had retired from the service and he had been deputed by the present Director. That he had worked with the then Director Sh. Alok Kumar Srivastava and he was acquainted with his handwriting and signatures as he used to assign the work to him in official capacity. Th witness identified his signatures in the referral report Ex. PW1/1. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.

.....
Digitally Ct. Case PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI JOSHI Date:
2026.03.11 16:29:22 +0530
(v) by addition of a substance directly or as an ingredient which is not permitted;

....."

In the present case, the sample of 'Khoya Roll' was first analyzed by Food Analyst. However, on appeal of the accused, one part of the sample was sent to RFL and vide its report dated 04.03.2014, the Director RFL has opined that the sample was unsafe because total dye content of the synthetic colour exceeded the maximum limit of 100 ppm and the sample also contained 'aluminium' which was injurious to health. Since, the report of RFL has come on record, it would supersedes the report of Food Analyst. Reliance in this regard is placed on Andhra Pradesh Grain & Seeds Merchant Association Vs. Union of India AIR 1971 SC 246 and MCD Vs. Bishan Sarup, ILR 1970 (1) Delhi 518. However, in Bishan Sarup (supra) it was held that the presumption attaching to the Certificates issued by the Directorate of CFL (RFL in the present case) is only in regard to what is stated in it, as to the contents of the sample actually examined by the Director and nothing more.