MADAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition as well as the two appeals, namely. Criminal Appeals Nos, 76 and 77 of 1968, raise common questions of law and may, therefore, be disposed of by a common judgment. The facts of each of the cases may briefly be stated:-

(2.) In Criminal Revision No. 305/67 the petitioner had a shop at which he sold sweets and lassi. On 4-6-1966, the Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi went to the petitioner's shop and found a certain quantity of bura kept in a drum in a portion of the petitioner's shop. The Food Inspector informed the petitioner that he wanted to take a sample of the said bura for the purpose of analysis. The petitioner informed the Food Inspector that he was not storing bura for the purpose of sale but only for the purpose of using it in the preparation of lassi. The Food Inspector, however, took 600 grams of bura from the drum and tendered payment of Rs. 1.10 paise to the petitioner as price of the bura taken by him. The petitioner, however, declined to accept the amount. The Food Inspector then divided the sample of bura into three portions and put the three portions into three separate bottles and sealed the bottles. He handed over one of the bottles to the petitioner and obtained a receipt from him. He sent one of the other two bottles to the Public Analyst and the latter sent his report to the effect that the sample of bura sent to him was adulterated inasmuch as there was deficiency of 7.2 per cent in the total sugar expressed as sucrose per cent. On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, a complaint was filed against the petitioner in the Court of the Magistrate, 1st Class. Delhi, for an offence under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the trial Court, the petitioner did not dispute either that the Food Inspector had taken the sample of bura from his shop or that the said bura was adulterated; but took the plea that he had not kept the said bura in his shop for sale as such but only for the purpose of using it in the preparation of lassi. The learned Magistrate, while accepting the plea of the petitioner that he had not kept bura in his shop for sale as such but only for using it in the preparation of lassi which was sold by him to the public, held that the petitioner committed an offence under sections 7 /16 of the Act. He, therefore, convicted the petitioner under sections 7/16 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The conviction of the petitioner as well as the sentence passed against him were confirmed on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.

(3.) In Criminal Appeal No. 76/68, the respondent was running a restaurant in East Patel Nagar, New Delhi, where he sold tea and coffee. On 25-5-1967, the Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi went to the respondent's restaurant and found a certain quantity of toned milk in a patila. The Food Inspector informed the respondent that he wanted to take a sample from the said milk for the purpose of analysis. The respondent told the Food Inspector that he was not selling the milk in the restaurant but was using it only in the preparation of tea and coffee. The Food Inspector, however, took 660 ml. of toned milk from the Patila and tendered payment of 35 paise as price thereof. The respondent accepted this price only under protest. The Food Inspector then followed the procedure prescribed for the taking of samples for the purpose of analysis. The sample sent to the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the standard prescribed for toned milk under the Act. The respondent was, therefore, prosecuted for an offence under sections 7/16 of the Act. During the trial, the respondent led evidence to prove that he did not sell toned milk as such in his restaurant but that he sold only tea and coffee and that he used the toned milk only in the preparation of tea and coffee. The learned trial Court accepted this evidence and held that the respondent did not sell toned milk as such in his restaurant but sold tea and coffee and used the toned milk only in the preparation of the tea and the coffee. The learned trial Court further held that as the respondent did not sell the toned milk as such in his restaurant. he did not commit any offence under sections 7/16 of the Act even if such toned milk was found to be adulterated. He, therefore, acquitted the respondent. The Municipal Corporation has filed the present appeal by special leave against the acquittal of the respondent.