MUNICIPAL CORPN , DELHI Vs. JAGAN NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FROM the shop of Messrs. Janta Sudh Masala Store at No. 489/20B Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, Shri Prem Parkash Sinha, a Food Inspector, took on October 22, 1971, at about 12.45 P.M. a sample of ginger for the purpose of getting it analysed. He purchased 450 grams of that article on payment of Rs. 3.05 to Jagan Nath, who was present in the shop and selling goods. On one part of the sample being analysed by the Public Analyst it was reported to be adulterated. On the basis of that report Jagan Nath, Ram Chand, Subhash Chand and Messrs. Janta Sudh Masala Store were prosecuted. All the accused were, however, acquitted by Shri B.L. Anand, Judicial Magistrate First Class. Against the order of acquittal dated September 11, 1972 the present appeal was filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

(2.) IT may be mentioned that Jagan Nath. Ram Chand and Subhash Chand were alleged to be partners of the firm Messrs. Janta Sudh Masala Store located at 489/20B, Gandhi Nagar. Jagan Nath, who had sold the sample of ginger to the Food Inspector, however, took the stand that he was the sole proprietor of the firm. Ram Chand and Subhash Chand as well stated about having no concern with Messrs. Janta Sudh Masala Store. The trial Court held that Jagan Nath, Ram Chand and Subhash Chand were the partners of Messrs. Janta Sudh Masala Store, but acquitted all the accused on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove that the article of food of when the sample was taken had become unfit for human consumption on account of insect infestation. Reliance was also placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Dhan Raj v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1972 FAC 335 : (1973 Cri LJ 433) (Delhi).

(3.) THE sample of ginger was taken by the Food Inspector after observing the required legal formalities. On that very day one of the three parts of the sample was delivered to the Public Analyst The Public Analyst got the sample analysed on October 26, 1971 and made a report (Exhibit PE) that the sample was adulterated due to the presence of insect infestation and on account of 60.6% of insect damaged rhizomes. The result of the analysis was stated in the report to be as follows : -