KHACHEROO MAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act) and the sentence of 6 months rigorous impronment and a line of Rs, 1,000.00 in default of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. B.R. Kochhar, Food Inspector. on 8th January, 1969 purchased 600 grams of Kaiu tukras as sample for analysis from the petitioner on payment of its price. The Food Inspector prepared the inventory and various other documents in respect of the sample taken by him. He divided the sample into three equal parts and put them in three dry bottles which were duly sealed. One of these bottles was sent to the Public analyst who reported that the sample was adulterated due to its being insect infested. On receipt of this report a complaint was filed against the petitioner. The trial Court found the petitioner guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. His appeal to the Court of Session was dismissed by the additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.

(2.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the report of the Public Analyst is vague and does not show that the petitioner is guilty of any offence. The report of the Public Analyst is Exhibit P-E and is as follows : "Date of analysis : 10.1.1969 Insect infested pieces of kaius : 21.9% and I am of the opinion that the same is adulterated due to insect infested pieces of kajus to the extent of 21.9%". According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this report does not show the presence of and living insects and so the article could not be termed "insect infested"

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the State it is not necessary that living insects should be present before the article could become 'insect-iniested' He submits that 'insect-infested' is the result of insect-infestation' and in other words means insect damaged.