PARKASH CHAND AND ANR. Vs. STATE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of criminal revision Nos. 212 and 231 of 1976 since both arise of one judgment. Bawa Gurcharan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, has raised a question of law only. It is, therefore, not necessary to go in detail about the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that on 31st March, 1973 Food Inspector M.L. Kakra (P.W. 2) lifted two samples of Besan from the shop of M/s. Sunder Dass Amrit Lal. Parkash Chand petitioner had sold the Besan to the Food Inspector for analysis. The quantity purchased by the Food Inspector was 600 grams. It was divided into three equal portions and duly sealed. One such sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst found the presence of Kesri Dal and declared the sample adulterated. On a complaint filed by the respondent Corporation the petitioners were convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Parkash Chand petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for IJ years with a fine of Rs. 2500.00 while the firm was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5000.00

(2.) Bawa Gurucharan Singh's only contention is that the Food Inspector was required to send approximately 250 grams of Besan to the Public Analyst in terms of rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules as it stood at the time the sample was taken. Admittedly, about 200 grams of Besan were sent for analysis. The learned counsel refers to a Division Bench judgment of this court in M.C.D. Vs. Attar Singh, Cr. Appeal No. 40 of 1971, D/d. 12.5.1975. which, following the Supreme Court decision in Rajaldas Gurunamal Pamanani Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 1975 FAJ 146, held that where the quantity sent by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst under rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules it leads to injustice. The Bench in Attar Singh's case (supra) observed thus:-

(3.) It may be noticed that in the Bench case unpermitted coaltar dye was found present by the Public Analyst. The presence of such dyes could be detected even if the quantity sent to the Public Analyst was much less. However, the Bench, following the Supreme Court judgment, held that the shortage in the quantity for analysis leads to an injustice and is not permitted by the statute.