MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DELHI Vs. HIRA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Municipal Corporation of Delhi has filed this revision for enhancement of the sentence against the judgment of Shri D.D. Gautam, Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, convicting respondent Hira Lal under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment till the hearing of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 only?

(2.) The respondent was served with a notice along with a copy of the revision petition on 20th Aug., 1968. An actual date notice was sent to him by a registered A.D. post and it has been received back with postal endorsement refused". This petition has been, therefore, heard in the absence of the respondent.

(3.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that Shri K.D. Sachdeva, Food Inspector, on 10-11-1966 purchased from the respondent "Besan sweets prepared with Vanaspati and edible colour" at his shop No. 733% Prem Nagar, Subzimandi, Delhi, for analysis. Payment of Rs. 4.50 was made to the respondent who sold 1500 grams of the said article. These were duly divided into three portions and put in three dry and clean jars, which were duly sealed. One of the sealed jars was given to the respondent whereas the second one was kept by the Food Inspector and the third one was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. Seizure memo. Exhibit PC was prepared at the spot, which was signed and thumb marked by the respondent. Exhibit PB was the notice given to him which also is signed and thumb marked by him. Exhibit PA is the receipt of Rs. 4.50 by the respondent from the Food Inspector. The Public Analyst vide his report Exhibit PE reported that the article was adulterated due to presence of un-permitted colour in the sweets. On receipt of this report ShriVed Parkash P.W. filed a complaint under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The respondent denied all the allegations made against him. After recording the evidence, the Magistrate found the respondent guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.