DIN DAYAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted by the Magistrate First Class, Delhi for an offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and also to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000.00 and in default to suffer R.I. for 15 months. The conviction and the sentence have been confirmed on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.

(2.) The prosecution case against the petitioner is that on 20-8-1966, between 3.30 p.m. and 4 p.m. the Food Inspectors Sarvshri Balraj Kochhar and Shanti Nath purchased samples of cumin seed (Zeera Safed) from the petitioner from out of the stock of the said article which had been stored at his godown No. 65, Gadodia Market, Khari Baoli, Delhi which samples on being examined by the Public Analyst were found to be insect infested and also adulterated by reason of containing excess percentage of foreign seeds. The two Food Inspectors who had purchased the sample were examined as witnesses' in the trial court and testified to the facts already stated. Two other witnesses were also examined and they also testified that they were present at the time when the Food Inspectors had purchased the samples from the petitioner's godown. The petitioner himself admitted the taking of the samples by the two Food Inspectors from his godown ; but stated that the stock of cumin seed from which the samples were taken were not meant for sale and that he had also exhibited a board at his go-down to the same effect. He further stated that he was getting the stock of cumin seed cleaned with a view to remove the insects etc. before he was to sell it to the public. This statement of the petitioner was not accepted by the trial court by the appellate court accepted the plea of the petitioner in view' of the fact that was supported by the two prosecution witnesses who were present at the time of the taking of the samples by the Food Inspectors and was not denied by the Food Inspectors themselves. The learned appellate court held that the stock from which the samples were purchased was not stored for sale and that the same was to be exposed for sale in the shop of the petitioner which was situated near his godown. The learned appellate court therefore held that the prosecution evidence was not sufficient to establish beyond doubt that the petitioner had stored for sale any adulterated food. The appellate court, however held that the fact that the petitioner accepted the price of the samples from the Food Inspectors amounted to the sale of the food article within the meaning of section 7 of the Food Adulteration Act on that ground he sustained the conviction of the petitioner as well as the sentence passed against him.

(3.) I am in agreement with the finding of the learned appellate court that the petitioner had not stored for sale any adulterated food. It is in evidence that the petitioner has a shop as well as a godown. The samples were not taken from the stock kept in the shop, but were taken from the stock kept in the Godown. It is also in evidence that at the time the samples were taken by the Food Inspectors some men were actually engaged in cleaning the cumin seeds in the godown. The prosecution witnesses have admitted that the petitioner informed the Food Inspectors that the stock of cumin seeds in the godown was not meant for sale and that it was merely being cleaned and further that there was also a board to the effect that the stock of cumin seeds in the godown was not for sale. The mere storage of adulterated food is not an offence under the Act ; it is only storage for sale of adulterated food which is an offence and therefore the petitioner cannot be convicted for an offence of storing for sale adulterated cumin seeds on 20-8-66.