RAMESHWAR DASS Vs. STATE AND M.C.D.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was sentenced by the Metropolitan Magistrate to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs 5,000.00 and in default of paying a fine to further R.I. for four months under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. On appeal, Shri K.B. Andley, Additional Sessions Judge, affirmed the conviction as well as the sentence. The petitioner has now come in revision to this Court.

(2.) A number of points have been urged in support of the petitioner's contention that the conviction is not justified. In order to understand these points it is necessary to state the facts giving rise to the conviction. On M-1969 two Food Inspectors went to the godown of Bombay Patiala Transport Company situated at Queens Road, Delhi to lift some samples from 5 bags belonging to a firm known as M/s. Rameshwar Dass Bai Kishan which were looked for Budhlada. At that time, a representative of the company was sent for who was the petitioner Shri Rameshwar Dass Two samples were taken from two of the bags, one by one of the Food Inspectors and another by the other. The relevant documents were executed by the petitioner and the samples were m sent to the Public Analyst who found them to be adulterated. This resulted in two complaints being filed under the Act which have been consolidated and dealt with together.

(3.) Several points have been raised relating to the questions whether the sample is in fact adulterated or is an article of food within the meaning of the Act and also contentions have been raised regarding the validity of the taking of the samples and the conviction of the accused. It has been pointed a out that the firm M/s. Rameshwar Dass Bal Kishan was the owner of the bags and the said firm had been discharged whereas the petitioner who is a mere partner has been convicted. On this question, it had been held that as the petitioner gave the sample his conviction is valid. It was also contended that the petitioner has not been proved to be responsible for the day-to-day working of the firm M/s. Rameshwar Dass Bal Kishan and hence he could not be convicted. Then it has been urged that the firm was only a Commission Agent and not a seller of the articles. Furthermore, it has been urged that in this case no sale has been proved because no price was accepted. Lastly, it was urged that the sample was found to be insect-infested but had not been proved to be unfit for human consumption.