MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Vs. JASWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the acquittal of the respondent, which he achieved in terms of the judgment passed by the trial court on 31st of October, 1967. The case against the respondent was that Public Witness . I Karan Singh Food Inspector had purchased from him on the 5th of October, 1966, 450 grams of red chillies and analysis of one of the samples thereof disclosed that they were adulterated. The Food Inspector gave that notice before making the purchase and paid the price and we have seen the receipt in respect thereof. He then proceeded to act in accordance with section II of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereafter called "the Act"). The quantity purchased was divided into three samphes, which were transferred to three separate bottles which were sealed. One of them was given to the respondent. We have seen Exhibit P.C. wich document was executed by the respondent not only by signing it but also by thumb-marking it. This document has been relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and it may be noticed that in terms the document states that Jaswant Rai Respondent had with him the concerned chillies for "selling/conveying/ delivering/preparing for sale."

(2.) There have been cases where while executing the documents like Exhibit P.C. the vendors have recorded their protests disclosing their precise please. Wherever a food-stuff is not meant to be sold there is nothing which prohibits the vendor from protesting that it is not meant for sale. Where it is found lying at the place of business but is for domestic consumption or is to be used for some other purpose, that also can be stated by the vendor while executing a document like Exhibit P.C. This is being observed in view of the fact that the document contains five columns. In the first column the name of the official is to be mentioned and in Exhibit P.C. the name of Karan Singh Food Inspector appears. The second column requires that the name of the vendor with his full address may be mentioned. There the name of Jaswant Rai son of Gokal Chand and his address is mentioned. In the third column the date and place of collection and time are mentioned. The same are correctly stated. Then comes the fourth column. It requires that the nature of the article submitted for analysis be mentioned. There is a warning in the fourth column that the article which is being allowed to be purchased by the Food Inspector is to be subjected to analysis for finding out whether it is adulterated or not. The fifth column requires that the nature and quantity of preservative, if any, added to the sample should be mentioned. There are some food-stuffs to which preservatives have to be added before they are put into separate bottles or contniners as samples.

(3.) It is worth noticing that there is a writing in Exhibit P. C. on which, the learned counsel for the respondent places reliance in order to urge that the food-stuff which was being sold was meant for the preparation of Dal Sev for sale. I would like to reproduce here the exact words :- "Have stored red chillies for the preparation of Dal Sev for sale." The writing by itself proves that the respondent admitted that he had at his premises the powder of red chillies which was purchased for purposes of analysis, but the assertion was that it was to be used for the preparation of Dal Sev.