BEHARI LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Muncipal Corporation of Delhi filed a complaint against the petitioner Behari Lal and the firm of M/s. Budh Ram Behari Lal under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with the allegations that on 28-11-1967, at about 4.00 P.M., the petitioner was keeping ghee for sale at shop No. 1225, Maliwara, Delhi, out of which the Food Inspector of the Corporation purchased a sample from the petitioner which, on analysis by the Public Analyst, was found to be adulterated. The prosecution examined the Food Inspector who had purchased the sample of ghee from the petitioner as P.W. I and also examined two witnesses who are said to have been present at the time Public Witness I purchased the sample from the petitioner. They are Public Witness s. 4 and 5. One of these witnesses, namely, Public Witness 5, supported the prosecution case in its entirety, but the other witness, namely, Public Witness 4, did not support the prosecution case fully and was treated as hostile by the prosecution. The petitioner, in his statement under section 342 Criminal Procedure Code ., admitted that the sample of ghee was taken from his shop by Public Witness I, but denied that he was keeping the said ghee for sale. According to him, the ghee belonged to one Ram sarup. He examined two defence witnesses, one of whom was Ram Sarup, D.W. 2. He stated that he was the owner of the ghee from which the sample had been taken. The other defence witness, D.W. 1, was examined as an expert. He stated that the presence of a small quantity of sesame oil in the ghee might be due to the feeding of the animal on sesame cake and that this would not amount to an adulteration. At the instance of the petitioner, a sample of the ghee was also sent to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta and the latter sent his report to the effect that the ghee was adulterated due to the presence of sesame oil. The learned Magistrate, on a consideration of this evidence, held that the petitioner was in fact keeping the ghee for sale and also that the ghee was adulterated inasmuch as it was found to contain sesame oil. Since the petitioner had claimed to be the sole proprietor of the firm, the petitioner was convicted under section 7/16 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. The firm of M/s. Budh Ram Behari Lal was acquitted. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, against his conviction and sentence, but the same was dismissed and the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner were confirmed. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against his conviction and the sentence passed against him.

(2.) The evidence of Public Witness s. 1 and 5 having been accepted and the evidence of D.W. 2 having been rejected by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, it is not open to this Court, sitting in revision, to reappraise that evidence on the question whether the ghee, a sample from which was taken by the Food Inspector, belonged to the petitioner or belonged to D.W. 2. As a matter of fact this question was not re-agitatedbefore us by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We would, therefore, proceed on the basis that the petitioner was found to be keeping for sale the ghee a sample from which was purchased by the Food Inspector. The only question for consideration is whether this ghee was adulterated within the meaning of section 2(i) of the Act.

(3.) The relevant clause of section 2(i) of the Act is clause (1), Section 2(i)(l) is in the following terms :-