MADAN LAL HARI CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 8th October, 1968, Food Inspectors H. K Bhanot and V. P. Anand went to the shop known as 'Roshan Di Kulfi' situated at Ajmal Khan Road. Karol Bagh, Delhi. Madan Lal, an employee was working at the shop. H. K. Bhanot. Food Inspector disclosed his identity to Madan Lal and purchased 900 grams of Kulfi prepared with 'Pista' and nuts on payment of Rs. 7.50 as its price for the purpose of analysis. The Food Inspector divided the sample in three parts and filled it in three clean and dry bottles. The Food Inspector added 24 drops of formalin in each bottle. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, one part was given to the accused and the third part was retained by the Food Inspector. H. K. Bhanot, Food Inspector, prepared the inventory. Exhibit P. C/1 with regard to the taking of the sample of Kulfi. Similarly, V. P. Anand, Food Inspector, purchased 900 grams of Kulfi prepared with 'Pista' and nuts on payment of Rs. 7.00 as its price for the purposes of analysis. V. P. Anand divided the sample in three parts and filled it in three clean and dry bottles. The Food Inspector added 24 drops of formalin in each bottle and sealed the bottles, One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, one part was given to the accused, Madan Lal and the third part was retained by the Food Inspector, The Food Inspector prepared an inventory Exhibit P. C. with regard to the taking of the sample of the Kulfi. The Public Analyst analysed the sample (taken by Food Inspector H. K. Bhanot) on 11th October. 1968 and found it adulterated due to 2.38 deficiency in milk fat percent by weight and due to presence of starch (other than that of dry nuts). The sample taken by V. P. Anand, Food Inspector was found to be adulterated due to presence of starch (other than that of dry nuts.)

(2.) On receipt of the reports of the Public Analyst, the Municipal Prosecutor filed a complaint under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, against Madan Lal (employee) and Roshan Lal, proprietor of the shop. The case was tried in the court of Shri S. M. Dua, Judicial-Magistrate. The complainant in support of its case examined P. W.1 V. P. Anand : P. W. 2, J. P. Jain. Assistant Municipal Prosecutor ; P. W. 3 H. K. Bhanot ; P W. 4 Dev Raj : P. W. 5 Satpal ; C. W. 1 Prem Parkash Bhatnagar ; and C W 2. B D. Narang. Madan Lal accused in his statement under section 342 Cr. P. C. stated that he was an employee of Roshan Lal and Kishori Lal. The accused further stated that the Food Inspector came to the shop ; that the Kulfi was not ready for sale and it was not meant to be sold The accused further stated that he was an employee of Roshan Lal Kishori Lal which is a partnership concern.

(3.) Roshan Lal accused in his statement under section 342 Cr. P. C. stated that "Roshan Di Kulfi" is a partnership business arid he and Kishori Lal are its partners ; that Kishori Lal looks after the business of the shop. The accused stated that due to illness he remains at the house and that he has no knowledge of the taking of the sample. Roshan Lal in support of his defence examined D. W. I Kishori Lal ; and D, W. 2 Hari Chand. D. W. 1 deposed that he is a partner in the concern Roshan Di Kulfi ; that the other partners of the said firm are Roshan Lal and Ram Rakha Mal ; that Exhibit D. W. I/A is the partnership deed ; that Roshan Lal is ill for the last three years and he does not go to the shop and that he and the other partner look after the business. In cross-examination the witness stated that Roshan Lal had signed the application for licence ; that income-tax return is filled on behalf of the firm and it is signed by both of them; that the firm has no other business except the business : "Roshan Di Kulfi".