NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. SHRI RAM NIWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal of the New Delhi Municipal Committee (hereinafter referred to as the committee) is directed against a judgment dated 28th February, 1977 of Shri B. N. Chaturvedi, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi acquitting the respondent, Ram Niwas in respect of an offences punishable under section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act.)

(2.) ON 25th June, 1973 at about 7.50 a.m. Shri R.N. Malhotra, (PW2), a food inspector of the Committee, purchased 'besan' weighing 600 grams from the respondent at his kiryana shop situated at B/136, Bapu Dham Coolie Camp, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi. In accordance with the rules, he divided the aforesaid 'besan' into 3 equal parts and put them in separate containers and sealed them. One of the samples was handed over to the respondent another was sent to the Public Analyst was the third one was retained by him. A report dated 10th July, 1973 of the Public Analyst was received to the effect that 'besan' was adulterated on account of presence of 10% kesai dal. After receipt of that report, a complaint was filed by Shri R.C. Sharma, Municipal Prosecutor of the Committee for prosecuting and punishing the respondent in respect of the offence punishable under section 16 of the Act.

(3.) IN the present case offence of the respondent stands proved beyond reasonable doubt on account of sale of adulterated 'besan'. Learned counsel for the respondent first of all contended that in the present case the respondent had sent the sample of 'besan' entrusted to him. Public Analyst of Haryana who after analysis expressed on opinion that the same did not contain kesari dal, that report of the said Public Analyst had been placed on record by the respondent which should be preferred as against that of the Public Analyst of Delhi and that the acquittal be maintained. But after some discussion the learned counsel conceded that the said report could not be taken into consideration, at all, because the same did not stand proved. According to section 13(5) of the Act, there is a presumption as to the correctness of report of Public Analyst but that presumption refers to a Public Analyst appointed for Union Territory of Delhi and not the one appointed for State of Haryana or any other area. Section 8 of the Act gives a clue as to who is a 'public analyst' within the meaning of provision of the Act. Section 8 reads as under :-