PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 - SECTION 16(1) (a) (i)-CHARGED FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 16(1) (a) (i)-Public Analyst's Report-Public Analyst, not explaining to the Court the method and procedure adopted by him in conducting the test to find out the required standard-Reliance on such Public Analyst's Report-HELD-When the Public Analyst has not explianed to the Court the method and procedure adopted by him in conducting the test to find out the required standard in an item, which itself is a defect in the prosecution case. When the method of test conducted is not explained to the Court, the report of the Public Analyst cannot be relied and acted upon.
The Public Analyst report Ex.P7 is as follows;
1. B.R. Reading at 40° C 58.0 2. Saponification value 190.77 3. Iodine Value 112.15 4. Free falty acid as 0.10% oleic acid 5. Belliers test 22.0C
That on a comparison of the table given at A. 17.12 and the Public Analyst Report Ex.P7 there is a slight variation in the meter reading of item No. 1 to the extent of 2-3 points. Similarly in respect of item No. 5, Belliers Test there is variation of about 3°C, whereas the other 3 items are found according to the table given in the Rules. In this regard in my opinion, it is not out of context, if it is said that the Court has to consider the potentiality and fertility of the land where nigerseeds are grown. If the lands are fertile, the percentage of fat materials will be more. Similarly, if the fertility of the land is poor, the crop of nigerseed cannot be expected to be with the same variety with contents are given in the table. That is also one of the factor which the Court has to take note off, as the other contents in the nigerseed are found according to the table.
Karnataka High Court
H.L. Nellashekara vs The Food Inspector Primary Health ... on 16 December, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006 CriLJ 1561, 2006 FAJ 213, ILR 2006 KAR 933, 2006(2)KCCR792
Bench: N VeerabhadraiahRead full judgment here;click here