MADAN GOPAL Vs. M.C.D.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the judgment of Shri K.B. Andley, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 22nd Nov., 1975, whereby he had maintained the conviction and sentence passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 21st March, 1975.

(2.) According to the prosecution, S.K. Ahuja, Food Inspector had purchased the sample of Haldi powder from the provision store of the petitioner situate at 79 A Dilshad Garden, Shahdara, Delhi. The quantity of the food article taken into possession was 450 grams. It was put in three different bottles in equal quantity which was duly sealed as required by the Act. The sample sent to the Public Analyst was reported to contain adulteration. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi filed a complaint under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act). After recording the statements of the material witnesses the petitioner was charge-sheeted, firstly for selling the adulterated Haldi powder and secondly for running the Kiryana shop without a licence, t he witnesses examined before the charge were recalled for further cross-examination and the remaining prosecution evidence was also produced thereafter. The statement of the petitioner was also recorded. As many as four witnesses in defence were examined. After considering the whole evidence the learned trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner for both the charges and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months and also to a fine of Rs. 5000.00 for selling adulterated Haldi powder and for selling the Haldi without licence he was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00. Aggrieved from the said judgment the petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of Sessions. The same was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, who maintained the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter the petitioner has come up to this court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a number of grounds which will be discussed presently. First of all it is contended that the place from where the Haldi powder had been taken into possession is absolutely vague. It is submitted that in the charge-sheet the premises from which the Haldi powder was taken by the Food Inspector has been described as Shop No. 79-A, Dilshad Garden, Shahdara and that in the latter part of the charge the same has been described as a 'Kiryana' shop. It is contended that there is a Fair Price Shop run by the family of the petitioner and that Haldi powder or spices etc. are not sold there. In support of this contention reference has been made to the statements of R.B. Jain, D.W. 2, Labhu Ram, D.W. 3 and Bishamber Sahai, D.W. 4. It is canvassed that all these defence witnesses are respectable persons with established business and that there is no reason to disbelieve them. It is also argued in this connection that the Haldi powder had been kept in the shop for domestic consumption and not for sale. Further in his statement made by the petitioner under Sec. 342 Cr. P.C. he stated that this article had been bought from the market and was not for sale at the Ration Shop.