RAM PARKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted for an offence under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 3 months.

(2.) The prosecution case against the petitioner is that on 3-2-1967 at about 8.30 A.M. the Food Inspector, M.C.D. went to the petitioner's shop in (Doriwalan Shaheedi Pura) Delhi and found some quantity of badana' sweets kept for sale in the shop and that the Food Inspector purchased from the petitioner 150 grams of the said sweet for Rs. 4.50 and further that when a sample of this sweet was sent to the Public Analyst it was found to be adulterated in as much it was prepared with un-permitted coal tar dye.

(3.) The prosecution examined 5 witnesses in the trial court. P.W. 1 is the Food Inspector who purchased the sweet from the petitioner. P.W. 1 stated that he purchased 150 grams of badana sweet from out of the quantity which was kept by the petitioner in his shop, and that he divided it into 3 equal parts, put them in 3 bottles which were sealed thereafter and that one bottle was given to the petitioner. He further stated that he sent another bottle to the Public Analyst and on the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst to the effect that it was adulterated he produced the third bottle before the Magistrate alongwith the complaint. P.W. 3 is another Food Inspector who is said to have been present when P.W. 1 purchased the sweet from the petitioner. He corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1. P.Ws. 4 and 5 are non-official witnesses, who according to the prosecution were also present at the time when P.W. 1 purchased the sweet from the petitioner and who are said to have attested, the purchase memo and the notice given by the Food Inspector to the petitioner. These witnesses, however, did not support the prosecution case and they were treated as hostile. The remaining witness P.W. 2 is only a formal witness.