ABHEY RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this revision are that the revisioner is a confectioner in Model Town, Delhi. The Food Inspector on Sept. 2, 1975, purchased 600 gms. of Maida out of 10 Kgs. stocked in a tin at his shop for preparation of Balooshahi The sample on analysis was found insect-infested. Upon prosecution, the accused raised the plea that the stock was out of 70 kgs. he had purchased on Aug. 31, 1975 from a fair price shop as per directions' of the Civil Supplies Department. He had kept the Maida in the same condition and it was not his fault if it contained insects. He had no option in the matter of purchase. The Metropolitan Magistrate, however, by his judgment dated Oct. 5, 1977, convicted him under s. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with S. 7 thereof and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to a fine of Rs. 1000.00 in default whereof to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

(2.) The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on July 15, 1978. Hence this revision.

(3.) Several points were urged by the learned counsel in support of the revision. I need not go into all of them as the case can be disposed of upon one point only, it appears from the prosecution evidence itself that the petitioner was not a vendor of Maida. He bad led evidence that he had purchased the Maida from the fair price shop as required by the Civil Supplies Deptt. He also said that he would have cleared the Maida of insects before he utilised it for purposes of preparation of sweets. That too apart, the case has to be examined in the light of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Luxmi Narain Tandon etc. etc. 1975 (II) FAC 444. According to that decision a Food Inspector can purchase a sample only from a person, among other things, selling or storing an article for sale. Here, in this case the petitioner was not selling Maida as such nor was he storing it for sale. He did store Maida for purposes of manufacture of sweetmeats for sale. It is only by an amendment made in the year 1976 that it has been clarified that a person shall be deemed to store any adulterated food if he stores such food for the manufacture therefrom of any article of food for sale. This amendment was brought into force on April 1, 1976, while the purchase in the present case took place on Sept. 2, 1975. He cannot therefore be deemed to store Maida. The explanation cannot be applied in this case and unless the Food Inspector seized the article under sub-sec. (6) of S. 10 as it then stood, he had no power to purchase the sample. No prosecution could be launched on the basis of such a sample.