M.C.D. Vs. BABU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent, Babu Lal, was prosecuted under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. According to the prosecution on Feb. 15, 1970 at about 12.30 in the afternoon Shri M.M. Kathpalia, Food Inspector, visited the shop of the firm M/s. Garg Provision and General Store in Green Park. New Delhi. Babu Lal as partner of the firm was present on the shop. On Shri Kathpalia disclosing his identity and giving notice and on his demanding some "Amchoor Sabat" was sold by Babu Lal to Shri Kathpalia. This sample was sent for chemical analysis. According to the report received, the sample was opined to be adulterated on account of presence of 33.78% insect infestation. The Amchoor Sabat pieces were reported to be insect infested by the Public Analyst vide his report Ex. PE.

(2.) The trial court convicted Babu Lal and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00. Babu La! appealed. The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Delhi, accepted the appeal and acquitted Babu Lal relying on the judgment of a learned single Judge of this court given in Criminal Revision No. 279 of 1969, Wazir Chand Vs. State decided on Dec. 24, 1970 (reported as 1974 F.A.C. 264). It was held that there was no evidence of living insect infestation, it the sample that had been lifted and inasmuch as the presence of living insect infestation was necessary before an article could be called insect infested, Babu Lal was not liable of being convicted. The Municipal Corporation Delhi has appealed against that order.

(3.) Before us the point in issue is somewhat different. It has been pointed out on behalf of the respondent that there is no evidence on record to prove that even if there was insect infestation, the article of food was unfit for human consumption. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 1971 Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Kacheroo Mal decided on Sept. 29, 1975 and reported in 1975 (2) FAC 223. It was held by the Supreme Court that in the case of an article in respect of which the prosecution is for adulteration due to insect infestation, it will have to be proved that insect infestation is of such a nature, degree and extent as renders the article unfit for human consumption. As we said earlier there is no evidence on this aspect. The opinion of the Public Analyst, Ex. PE, does not state whether the sample analysed by him was or was not fit for human consumption.