CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to the above-mentioned revision petition in brief are that on 17th April 1979, Food Inspector Arun Kumar accompanied by another Food Inspector Baljit Singh visited the premises bearing No. 4634, Gali Abdul Building, Roshanara Road, where a factory called Amrit Soda Water Factory was being run and carbonated aerated water was being manufactured Sri Chand-appellant was present there. He was looking after the business of the said factory and was conducting manufacture and sale of carbonated aerated wafer After disclosing their identity Arun Kumar lifted a sample of carbonated aerated water which comprised nine .bottles of carbonated aerated water duly sealed with identical crown corks. They bore the label that the carbonated water had been made with sugar and saccharine and had no colouring matter. A little while afterwards i.e. at about 4 p.m.

(2.) Baljit Singh, Food Inspector, too lifted another sample of carbonated aerated water having similar crown corks and labels. Both the samples were purchased by the Food Inspectors in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder. One counterpart each of both the samples was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and the Public Analyst found that the same were mis-branded on account of their having prepared with saccharine only although the declaration mentioned on the bottles was that they contained both sugar and saccharine. Thus, according to the Public Analyst, there was excess of saccharine by 50 P. p.m. beyond the prescribed limit. Thereupon, both Sri Chand and his father Shivan Dass were prosecuted under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act for storing for sale and selling adulterated carbonated water. Shivan Dass was said to be proprietor of the aforesaid firm while his son Shri Chand was said to be storing and selling the adulterated carbonated water on behalf of Shivan Dass.

(3.) Both the petitioners were convicted of the aforesaid offence by the trial Court vide judgment dated 27th April 1983. Feeling aggrieved, they went in appeal to the Court of Session but met with no success. However, their sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs l,000.00 each; in default of payment of fine they were awarded further simple imprisonment for two months. Since both the samples had been lifted almost simultaneously the sentence awarded in both the cases were directed to run concurrently.