JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment of Mr. K.B. Andley, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Sec. 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act while reducing the sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000.00.

(2.) I need not go in detail about the facts since the only question raised by Mr. B.B. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that there has been a contravention of Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules by the Food Inspector and so the petitioner is entitled to an acquittal.

(3.) The Food Inspector had purchased 450 grams of chillies powder for analysis from the petitioner. These were found to be adulterated because of the presence of artificial coaltar dye which is totally prohibited. In Hans Raj Vs. The State 1976 (I) FAC 168, I had held that chillies powder is a condiment and not spice. I had also held that under Rule 22 the Public Analyst should have been supplied with approximately 200 grams of chillies powder and that 150 grams cannot be said to be approximately 200 grams. Following a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of M.C.D. Attar Singh, 1975 (11) FAC 20, I held that the failure of the Food Inspector to send the requisite quantity as laid down by Rule 22 results not only in an infraction of the provisions of the statute but also in injustice.