GANPATI RAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge upholding the conviction of the petitioner under section 16 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00. When this revision came up before P.S. Safeer, J., he referred it to a larger Bench and that is how the matter is before us.

(2.) Kewal Ram, father of Ganpat Rai Petitioner, runs a Karyana shop at House No. 32, Kailash Colony Market, New Delhi. On February 21, 1970, at about 11.45 a.m. Food Inspector K.K. Doomra went to his shop and found the petitioner attending to the customers. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity to the petitioner and asked for the sample of bura (grounded sugar). He purchased 600 grams of Aura. When the Food Inspector wanted to pay its price of Rs. 1.20 P , the petitioner told the Food Inspector that he was sending for his father and he would accept the price after his father had come to the shop. The petitioner, however, told the Food Inspector that he could in the meantime complete other formalities. The Food Inspector prepared the necessary documents Exhibits PA. PB and PC. He also divided the bura into three portions and transferred the same into three separate clean bottles. After sometime a person came to the shop and whispered something to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner refused to accept the price of sugar and sign the documents which had been prepared, and snatched the three bottles containing the sample of bura and asked the Food Inspector and others to get out of the shop. The Food Inspector prepared report Exhibit P.D. at the spot and got it signed from the witnesses who were present.

(3.) The Municipal Corporation of Delhi filed a complaint against the petitioner under section 161 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for preventing the Food Inspector from taking the sample. The defence of the petitioner, as disclosed in his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was that he was present at the shop and had duly given the sample but he had refused to sign the documents and accept the price because he had no connection with the shop. He, however, denied snatching any bottles from the Food Inspector and asserted that the bottles were duly taken away by the staff of the Food Inspector.