Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. PW-2 during cross-examination reaffirmed that there was no label or brand name printed on the bag from which the sample was taken and denied that they were there on the bag. He also deposed that the jhaba or bottles were already clean or dry. He however denied that the jhaba and sample bottles were not clean and dry or that the sample got contaminated with colour due to improper sampling procedure.

10. PW-3 had only filed the complaint and was not aware what action was taken on the representation of the accused.

56. There is nothing for the court to disbelieve the PA and CFL reports wherein artificial synthetic colour tartrazine has been detected in the food article. Even the defence has nowhere disputed this fact, though has sought to challenge the validity of reports on other technical grounds. It is not the defence of the accused that no colour was detected, or was detected wrongly. In this case, no stand has been taken by the accused at the trial that any such colour was a result of natural environment or the food article having been exposed to natural environment. There is no merit in the claim of the accused that his right got frustrated due to delay in filing the complaint, because no delay would result in development of synthetic colour if it was not there or disappearance of synthetic colour if it was there, though such delay might be held responsible for change in moisture content. No such defence was raised by the accused in his statement under section 313 CrPC or even in defence evidence. Rather his stand at the trial had been that he had purchased the food article from a third person, that the sampling method was not proper and that the food article got contaminated with colour due to improper sampling procedure.

57. Interestingly, by putting specific suggestions to PW-2, the accused has lost the right to claim that there was no artificial or synthetic colour as detected by the PA or CFL. By taking such a stand, the accused has rather accepted that colour was in fact there in the sample, though has taken stand that it got added due to unclean jhaba, bottles etc. He has virtually accepted that such colour was there, though the burden would now shift upon him to prove that the colour was on account of contamination in sampling procedure or unclean jhaba or bottles, as suggested to PW-2. For that matter, once the accused has taken a stand that the sample got contaminated with colour due to improper sampling procedure, he had no occasion to also claim that the food article as purchased by him through any other supplier was already having colour.

64. The defence vaguely claims that the sample was not taken properly and that the possibility of contamination has not been ruled out. However, no irregularity has been pointed out by the accused in sample proceedings, except giving bald suggestions to the PWs which were categorically denied by them. There is no evidence to establish the stand of the accused that the jhaba or bottles or polythene bag were not clean and dry or that the sample got contaminated with colour at any stage of the sampling procedure. Evidently, all the witnesses deposed in one voice that the bottles, jhaba, etc were all clean and dry when used. This stand was maintained by all the PWs even during their cross-examination. All the PWs specifically deposed about use of clean and dry jhaba, sample bottles etc and vehemently denied that they were not so clean or dry. Thus, this is not a case where there is no evidence to show that the utensils or implements were clean and dry. Rather there is positive testimony of the witnesses to this effect which has never been questioned or rebutted by leading contrary evidence. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence or examine any witness who could depose that the jhaba or bottles or polythene bag used in the sample proceedings were not clean and dry.