BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is running a 'dhaba' at Gandhi Nagar. A sample of 'Haldi' was taken from him which on analysis was found to be adulterated. After trial he was convicted which was maintained by the Sessions Court and the filed revision in the High Court. Para 7 onwards the judgement is :

(2.) The submission of Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the standard of Haldi powder is in two parts. The first part relates to the purity of standard and the second part relates to the quality of standard and thus the offence, if any, is covered by section 2 (i) (1). This submission is fallacious for more than one reason. Firstly, as will be noticed, the heading of Appending B shows that what has been prescribed is not only the standard of quality but also the definition of the article. The first part of the standard is. the definition part and the second part is explicitly the standard of the powder. Secondly, the case cannot possibly fall under clause (1). It relates to the standard being violated either by the short or excess of the prescribed limits. The violation under clause (1) in case of prohibition is not covered at all. In the definition part of the standard of Haldi powder it has to be free from artificial colouring matter and, again, under rule 29 Haldi powder is prohibited from having any coal tar dye, even the permitted coaltar dyes. It is thus clear that clause (1) of section 2 (i) cannot cover the present case. Again, under Rule 44 (h) turmeric is prohibited from containing any foreign substance. The report of the Public Analyst quoted above shows that the Haldi Powder was found to be adulterated not only for excess in total ash present but also due to the presence of 20% foreign matter of rice starch besides artificial coal tar dye. The starch permissible in the Haldi powder is the natural starch in the Haldi and not of any foreign matter. Therefore, the present case ceases to be the case of either quality or purity being less or in excess of the prescribed standard. In view of the definition part as well as Rule 44 (h) the sample of Haldi powder is adulterated due to the presence of the two aforesaid extraneous substances which are prohibited and therefore clause (1) of section 2 (i) will have no application whatsoever. Clause (1) of section 2 (i), as is clear from the wording of it, applies only where it is found that the prescribed constituents are either less or in excess of the prescribed standard. I will therefore reject the submission of the learned counsel that the case is covered by section 2 (i)(1) of the Act,

(3.) Mr. Soni next urged that since it is a case of violation of the rules it is covered by the penal provisions of section 16 (i) (ii) This argument is based on ignoring the first part of sub-clause (ii) of section 16 (1) where only those cases are covered which are not covered by clause (i) of section 16 (1) (a). Since the report shows that the article is adulterated clause (ii) of section 16 (1) (a) would not be applicable.