SHYAM LAL Vs. STATE ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Criminal Revision Nos. 290 to 292 of 1971 which are directed against the judgment of Shri J.D. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, upholding the convictions of the petitioner under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but converting the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 in each case to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that Girdhari Lal, Parkash Chopra O.P. Khurana and M.M. Kathpalia Food Inspectors along with officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi went to premises No. 27, Ashok Park, Extention. Market, New Delhi, on 6-8-1969 at about 4.30 p.m. Shyam Lal petitioner was found present there. The premises was found to have a grinding mill. In the premises were kept for sale broken rice (Chawal Ki Kinki), Powdered Haldi coloured broken rice and condiments etc. On enquiry the petitioner disclosed to the Food Inspectors that he was a salesman-cum-representative of Sevti Devi who was the owner of the premises as well as the grinding mill. Each Food Inspector, after disclosing the identity, lifted samples of various articles of food which when sent to the Public Analyst, were found adulterated.

(3.) In Criminal Revision No. 290 of 1971, O.P. Khurana Food Inspector had taken a sample of edible coloured broken rice after payment of its price to the petitioner. The necessary memos were duly prepared and got signed by the petitioner as well as witnesses. Exhibit P. A. is the receipt of the price paid to the petitioner. Exhibit P.B. is the notice given to him, whereas Exhibit P.C. is the inventory prepared at the spot. All are thumb-marked as well as signed in English by the petitioner. The petitioner on inventory Exhibit P.C. had written in his own hand that the article in question was kept for grinding. When one of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst he reported that the sample was adulterated "due to the presence of unpermitted dye, even permitted colour cannot be added under rules." (Exhibit P.E.). A complaint under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Case No 237/3 of 1969) was filed against the petitioner and Sevti Devi. The defence of the petitioner was that no article of food is sold at the premises but the articles brought by the customers are simply ground and handed back. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not only doing grinding but was also selling articles of food at that premises, and so convicted and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00.