KAILASH CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition preferred under Art. 134 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner seeks a certificate for filing an 'appeal against the judgment dated the 2Sth of Jan., 1971, by which Criminal Revision No. 473 of 1969 was disposed of.

(2.) The first contention raised is that a sale will not be a sale' within the meaning of clause (xiii) of section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (hereafter to be called "the Act") where at the time of the purchase by the Food Inspector the alleged seller asserts that the commodity was not meant for sale. The contention cannot be accepted for the reason that if that were to be the case the enforcement of the provisions of the Act will be at the mercy of the seller. In every case it would be a convenient assertion that at the time when the Food Inspector made the purchase after giving the notice he had been told that the commodity was not meant for sale. Sub-clause (xiii) of section 2 of the Act is:-

(3.) The Legislature exerted itself in coining a comprehensive definition meant to be utilised for purposes of determining whether a sale had taken place or not within the meaning of the Act. If a reference is made to the evidence discussed in the judgment under consideration the sample was purchased from the business premises and it was rightly concluded on an appraisal of evidence that a sale had taken place in terms of the aforementioned provision of the Act.