RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment of Mr. H.C. Goel, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi upholding the conviction of the petitioner under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000.00I find that this revision has to be accepted on the simple ground that the Food Inspector did not lift the requisite quantity of the article of food for the purpose of analysis. The relevant facts may now be noted. Udey Singh (P.W. 1) who is a Food Inspector lifted a sample of 450 grams of Besan from shop No. 11-B East Avenue Market, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi on Dec. 28, 1968. The petitioner is the owner of that shop. The sample was sent for analysis The Public Analyst declared it adulterated because of the presence of foreign matter of starches to the extent of 15 per cent.

(2.) Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, as it stood in 1968, requires that the quantity of pulses, cereals, and the like (mentioned as item No. 19) to be sent to the Public Analyst for analysis should be approximately 250 grams. Appendix 'B' to these Rules mentions cereals under item A. 18. Under this heading at item No. A. 18.04 (Besan) is mentioned. It is thus clear that Besan was being treated as a cereal and approximately 250 grams of the same should have been sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The total quantity lifted by the Food Inspector, as already stated, was 450 grams. The Food Inspector had divided the same into three equal parts and had sent one such part of the sample to the Public Analyst. In other words, approximately 150 grams of Besan was sent to the Public Analyst instead of 250 grams as required by rule 22. It is true that the rule has since been amended but that will make no difference to this case in as much as the rule had cast a duty on the Food Inspector at that time to send approximately 250 grams of Besan,

(3.) A Division Bench of this court in M.C.D. Vs. Attar Singh, Cr. Appeal No. 40 of 1971, D/d. 12.5.1975 following the Supreme Court decision in Rajaldas Gurunamal Pamanani Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 1976 FAJ 146 observed thus :