M.C.D. Vs. GHANSHYAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was tried by Shri S.C. Ahuja, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, on a complaint filed by the petitioner-Corporation . under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, on the following allegations. Food Inspector, B.S. Sethi, P.W. 1, on 29th Dec., 1965, at about 1.30 p.m. found the respondent selling Amritis at his shop No. 1156, Kucha Mahajan, Delhi, alleged to have been prepared with pure Ghee. He purchased Amritis weighing 1500 grams on payment of Rs. 12.00 vide receipt Exhibit P.A. The Food Inspector gave notice Exhibit PB to the respondent. The sample taken was divided equally in three parts and put in three clean and dry bottles. Each bottle was sealed and fastened according to rules. One of these bottles was given to the respondent. Another bottle was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis with Memo Exhibit PD. On analysis the sample was found adulterated vide report Exhibit PE. On receipt of the report from the Public Analyst a complain was filed against the respondent.

(2.) The learned trial Magistrate found the respondent guilty of having committed an. offence under section 7/15 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (herein to be called the Act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 by his judgment dated the 5th Jan., 1973. In default of payment of fine, the respondent was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

(3.) Before the trial Court it was contended that the respondent was entitled to the benefits of Probation of Offenders Act (herein to be called the Probation Act') as he was stated to be below 21 years of age. The age of the respondent was sought to be established on the basis of Janampatri prepared by one Puran Chand P.W. According to the said Janampatri, Exhibit C.W. 2/A, the age of the respondent was stated to be 20 years and 11 months at the time , when the sample was taken by the Food Inspector. The trial Court rightly did not rely upon the date of birth of the respondent furnished on the basis of Janampatri, no sanctity being attached to the said document which could be got prepared at any time. In rejecting the contention of the respondent that he be given the benefits of the provisions of section 6(1) of the Probation Act, the trial Magistrate took the view that "die adulteration of food being a menace to public health and the Act having been enacted with the object of eradicating that anti-social evil and for ensuring purity of articles of food sold to the members of the public, court should not lightly resort to the provision of Probation of Offenders Act". In the result the respondent was convicted and sentenced as already noted earlier.