ISHWARDAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was tried under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') for having kept and sold on July 17, 1970, at premises No. 4541, Kutab Road, Delhi to Prem Prakash, Food Inspector, a sample bottle of Syrup Anar which on analysis was found misbranded under section 2(ix) of the Act due to having two contradictory declarations of labels on the bottle. He was found guilty and was consequently convicted under sections 7/16 of the Act and was sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 2.000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for a period of six months by judgment dated May 30, 1973 passed by Shri Shiv Charan, J.M.I.C., Delhi.

(2.) The petitioner feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment filed an appeal in the court of the Sessions Judge, Delhi which was heard by Shri P.L. Singla, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, who by his judgment dated Sept. 5, 1973, maintained the conviction and the sentence awarded to the petitioner and in the result dismissed the appeal.

(3.) The petitioner in this revision petition has questioned the legality of the conviction and sentence. The relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that PW. 1 Prem Prakash, Food Inspector, Municipal Corporation Delhi on July 17, 1970 visited the premises of the petitioner situated at No. 4541, Kutub Road, Delhi at about 11.30 a. m. and purchased three bottles of Synthetic Syrup Anar prepared from essence red colour raspberry and sugar on payment of Rs. 12.60 vide receipt Ext. PA. The bottles bore identical labels. He also obtained cash memo Ext. PB from the petitioner. The cash memo was made out by the accused and contained the words 'Anar Synthetic'. Before purchasing the sample bottles he gave notice Ext. PB. The three sample bottles were duly sealed by him and one sample bottle was given to the petitioner. He prepared Ext. PC at the spot, the contents of which were read out to the petitioner. One of the sample bottles was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis who vide his report Ext. PE gave the opinion that the sample bottle was misbranded. A copy of the report of the Public Analyst was given to the petitioner on Aug. 26, 1970 as evidenced by report A to A on the said exhibit. The Food Inspector prepared his report Ext. PF and submitted the case to the prosecution branch for filing a complaint. The Food Inspector approached independent witnesses to attest the memos but they refused. In cross examination he stated that as per bill he purchased Syr thetic Anar Syrup from the petitioner. PW. 3, O.P. Khurana, Food Inspector, Municipal Corporation Delhi, and PW. 4 Girdhari Lal, Food Inspector Municipal Corporation Delhi supported Prem Prakash in material details.