STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal which comes before us on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Allahabad under Art. 134(1) (c) of the Constitution, is against a judgment of that Court acquitting the respondent Kartar Singh of an offence under S. 7 read with S. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 which may be conveniently referred to as the Act.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the prosecution are briefly these:The respondent runs a shop at Haldwani and among the products sold by him is ghee. On March 19, 1960 a quantity of the ghee was purchased by the Food Inspector of the area and he put samples of the purchase into three phials which were sealed in the respondent's presence. It may be mentioned that even in the seizure memo the Food Inspector noted the ghee purchased by him as "pahadi ghee". One of the samples \was forwarded to the public Analyst to the Government of Uttar Pradesh for analysis for ascertaining whether the said ghee was adulterated. The analysis disclosed that in several respects the sample was sub-standard and that in particular it had a Reichert Value of 22.5 as against the prescribed minimum of 28 for ghee in Uttar Pradesh. After setting out the details of the analysis, the Public Analyst expressed the opinion that the sample "contained a small proportion of vegetable fat or oil foreign to pure ghee". On receipt of this report, the Medical Officer of Health, Haldwani sanctioned the prosecution of the respondent and a complaint was thereafter laid before the Magistrate 1st Class by the Food Inspector. The respondent pleaded not guilty and entered on his defence. Subsequently, the second sample was got analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, who reported that his analysis disclosed a Reichert Value of 21.7 as against 22.5 of the Public Analyst. The opinion expressed by him as regards the sample of ghee which he analysed was the same as that of the Public Analyst, viz., that the sample was adulterated.

(3.) The defence of the respondent who admitted that he had sold the ghee, samples of which were the subject of analysis, but denied it was adulterated, was two-fold:(1) He had obtained the ghee which he sold from Jodhpur. 2. The sample must be held not to be adulterated on the basis of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in State v. Malik Ram, AIR 1962 All 156.