HARISH CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been recommended by Shri D.R. Khanna, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, on the ground that the charge against the petitioner cannot be sustained.

(2.) The facts of this case are that the petitioner on 7th of March, 1969, at 10.05 a.m. was stated to have sold milk toffee (Parry sweets) as a salesman to Shri O.P. Sharma, Food Inspector, on behalf of one Rajnesh Kumar at his shop No. 1261, Bara Bazar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. This article on analysis was found to be adulterated and after receiving the report of the Public Analyst, Exhibit P.E. to the effect that the article of food was adulterated due to 3.45 excess in sucrose by weight per cent, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner in the court of Shri C.G. Sharma, Magistrate First Class, Delhi, on 28th of Oct., 1969, who framed a charge under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The accused-petitioner moved a revision petition against that charge in the court of Shri D.R. Khanna, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, who, as already stated, has recommended this revision petition on the ground that the charge framed against the petitioner cannot be sustained.

(3.) I have gone through the record of the case and find that in Exhibit P. A., which is the receipt issued by the petitioner on account of the cost received, the petitioner is stated to have sold 600 grams of Parrys packed sweets. Exhibit P.B., a memo issued in form VI also indicates that the sample of the food taken for analysis by the Public Analyst is stated to be Parrys Packed Sweets. Exhibit P.C. is the memo by virtue of which the Food Inspector is stated to have taken into possession 600 grams of Parry Sweets. A combined reading of the three Exhibits would show that what in fact was sold was Parrys Packed Sweets. It is, however, in Exhibit P.D. only vide which the sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst that in column No. 4 under the heading "Nature of article submitted for analysis" the Food Inspector mentioned "Parrys Packed Sweets (Milk Toffee)". It will, therefore, be seen that what was actually sold to the Food Inspector was Parrys Packed Sweets and not 'Milk Toffee'. The words 'Milk Toffee' have undoubtedly been added against the words "Parrys Packed Sweets" by the Food Inspector in his office at a later stage When the Food Inspector sent the article purchased for analysis to the Public Analyst. It is, therefore, obvious that what was sold to the Food Inspector was Parrys Packed Sweets only and not the Milk Toffee. The report of the Public Analyst, Exhibit P.E., no doubt, finds the sample to be adulterated due to 3.45 per cent sucrose in excess of the prescribed standard, but the same is in respect of the Milk Toffee; whereas in the instant case, as already stated above, what was sold to the Food Inspector was Parrys Packed Sweets and not the Milk Toffee. Consequently, the report of the Public Analyst is of no help in the case. Under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act there is another item described as "Hard boiled sugar confectionary" and the article seized in the instant case conforms to the prescribed standard of such confectionary. That being so, if the sample in question was found to contain some excess sucrose than what is permissible in a Milk Toffee, it cannot be said that the article sold by the petitioner was I adulterated milk toffee. Therefore, I am of the opinion that on a report obtained from the Public Analyst by wrongly disclosing the nature of the contents as 'Milk Toffee', the prosecution of the petitioner cannot be supported. The charge framed against the petitioner, therefore, cannot be sustained,