PALE RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act, and the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioner was found selling Chat Masala on 24-10-1969 at about 11.15 a.m. at premises No. 113, Fruit and Vegetable Market, Delhi, by Food Inspector Devi Singh. A sample of the same was duly purchased by the Food Inspector who prepared the relevant documents Exhibits P.A., P B. and PC. at the spot. The petitioner made an endorsement in his own hand on Exhibit P.B. that the Chat Masala was made of Haldi, white and black salt, yellow chillies and edible colour etc. The report of the Public Analyst Exhibit P.E. shows that the sample was adulterated because of the presence of "unpermitted coal-tar dye". The Municipal Corporation of Delhi duly filed a complaint under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against the petitioner whose defence, as disclosed in his statement under Sec. 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was one of complete denial. He also stated that he had got the Masala from one Ashrafi Lal for Rs. 150 P. and while he was so buying, the sample was taken by the Food Inspector. The trial Court found the defence false and held that it was the petitioner who had in fact sold the article of foo l in question to the Food Inspector and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. His appeal was dismissed by the learned additional Sessions Judge.

(3.) Mr. Ghansham Dass, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the report of the Public Analyst is vague since it does not disclose any data from which the Public Analyst came to his conclusion. He also contends that though no standard for Chat Masala has been prescribed, it would be treated akin to curry powder, the standard of which is given at A.05.21, and so the offence should be held to fall under the proviso to Sec. 16(1) of the Act and the sentence reduced.