PANNA LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the judgment of Shri D.R. Khanna, Addl. Sessions Judge whereby the petitioner's appeal against his conviction and sentence for six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner is a partner of a firm called Hukam Chand Jai Narain which carries on business in Gadodia Market, Delhi. On 27-9-1967 Shanti Nath, Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, went along with another Food Inspector, B R. Kochhar, and one Om Parkash to the petitioner's shop where the petitioner was found selling Haldi Sabat (turmeric-unground). The Food Inspector, after disclosing his identity, purchased from the petitioner 450 grams of Haldi Sabat for Rs. 1.24 from a bag and obtained receipt Ex. PA which was signed and thumb-marked by the petitioner. He also wrote in his own hand thereon that he had received Rs. 1.24. After following the necessary procedure for taking sample and dividing it into three parts and filling the same into three clean and dry bottles which were sealed, one of the bottles was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis on the next day i.e. 28-9-1967. The sample was tested on 6-10-1967 and the Public Analyst's report (Ex. PE) was prepared on 9-10-1967. According to that report, the sample was found to be adulterated due to the presence of insect-infested rhizomes to the extent of 39.72 per cent containing large number of living insects. After the receipt of this report, a complaint was filed against the petitioner as well as his firm.

(3.) During the course of the trial, the main defence taken on behalf of the accused was that the sample of Haldi taken into possession by the Food Inspector was not meant for sale but was sweep-age of the shop. It was however not denied that the petitioner was a partner of the firm Hukam Chand Jai Narain and that Shanti Nath, Food Inspector, had come to their shop at Gadodia Market, Delhi on 27-9-1967. The petitioner also appeared as his own witness under Sec. 342-A, Criminal Procedure Code, in support of the defence version and deposed that he had on the same day made complaints in writing vide Ex. PW2/A to the Municipal Health Officer, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation and the Mayor, Municipal Corporation, mentioning therein that Shanti Nath had obtained a sample from the sweep-age of his shop and had obtained his signatures and thumb-impressions on several documents under the threat of seizing the entire goods in the shop and handing him over to the police. He also produced in that behalf a postal certificate Ex. DW2/B.