TILLO RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this criminal revision, Tillo Ram accused-petitioner assails his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned Magistrate had taken a lenient view of his offence because he was lame from one leg and hand, therefore, instead of sentencing him to imprisonment imposed a fine of Rs. 600.00 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge further reduced the sentence of fine from Rs. 600.00 to Rs. 400.00, of course maintaining his conviction.

(2.) The facts of the case are that on 19th December, 1962, Food Inspector Lekh Raj Bhatt, Ram Gopal and Y.I. Bhatia visited the Jai Bharat Rice and General Mills on Najafgarh road and took four samples of til oil. It is not denied that the accused had stored til oil manufactured by him. Lekh Raj Bhatt disclosed his identity and purchased 375 grams of til oil for analysis on payment of 62 paisa. The sample was divided into three parts and poured into three clean and dry bottles. One of them was handed over to the accused, one retained by the Food Inspector and one sent to the Public Analyst. The sample sent 'o the Public Analyst was analysed on 27th December, 1962 and found adulterated due to excess of free fatty acids. It is unnecessary to give the derails of adulteration at this stage as no point has been sought to be made on this score before me and it is not disputed that the sample was found adulterated and, therefore, punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) On revision in this Court, Shri Sher Narain, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. has contended that there was no proper sanction for the prosecution. In the memorandum of revision, however, the challenge is against the complaint describing it as improper and it is submitted that Exhibit P.H., a copy of the resolution authorising the Assistant Municipal Prosecutor under section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to institute and conduct prosecution under the said Act has not been attested by the legal keeper of records as required by section 78 (5) of the Indian Evidence Act but is attested by the Head Clerk, Commissioner's office, Municipal Corporation, Delhi. The contention is that this resolution not having been properly proved, the complaint should be held not to be proper. This point was apparently not raised in the trial Court because there is no discussion thereon, but on appeal it was urged on behalf of the accused and repelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the Book Mannual of Papers showed that the Commissioner had authorised the Head Clerk, Central Office, to certify copies of the Municipal records as true copies for purposes of producing them as evidence in the Courts of law. But this apart, the learned Additional Sessions Judge also believed the statement of Shri Ganga Ram, Assistant Municipal Prosecutor, that he had been duly authorised by a resolution dated 31st May, 1962 to file complaints under section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It has not been shown that the learned Additional Sessions Judge is wrong in his conclusion. If the statement of Shri Ganga Ram is believed, then whether or not the resolution has been properly attested, losses all importance. I accordingly consider it unnecessary to refer to the petitioner's contention that under a notification of 10th April, 1958 the Municipal Secretary was to record and keep the minutes of the proceedings of the Corporation etc., and have the custody of the papers and documents connected with the proceedings of the Corporation etc. This notification, I may point out, was never produced as evidence in the case and proved.