STATE Vs. JANKI PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent, Janki Parshad, a halwai by vocation, was convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, under Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PFA Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/ -, in default simple imprisonment for two months on the allegation that on 29th August, 1983 at about 3:15 p.m., Food Inspector Jeet Singh under the supervision of Sh. G.P. Singh, Local Health Authority and Brahma Nand visited the business premises of the respondent and purchased a sample of lal mirch kutti from the respondent. The purchased lal mirch kutti was then equally poured into three clean and dry bottles as per rules. The price of the sampled lal mirch kutti which was offered by the Food Inspector was refused by the respondent. While the three bottles were in the process of being sealed, the respondent threw them away and thereby prevented the Food Inspector from lifting the sample. The then Secretary (Med.) accorded the consent for the prosecution of the appellant and complaint was filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate who convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated hereinabove.

(2.) THE respondent challenged his conviction by filing an appeal before the Sessions Court, New Delhi. Setting aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the prosecution having failed to establish that the respondent was using the said 'lal mirch' in any food article or selling the 'lal mirch' to any customer or keeping it for sale at his halwai shop, the offence under Section 16(1)(c) of the PFA Act was not made out. He further held that in view of the acquittal of the respondent in the police case lodged by the Food Inspector with similar allegations for the offences under Section 186/353/201 IPC, the judgment of conviction could not be sustained on the principle that there should not be conflicting findings and results in two cases decided by two different criminal courts in the same matter arising out of the same incident. In this view of the matter, by his judgment dated 4th July, 2008, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate and acquitted the accused. It is the said acquittal which is challenged by the State by filing the present appeal.

(3.) SUB -section (2) of Section 10 of the PFA Act specifically authorises the Food Inspector to take samples of those food articles which are "manufactured", "stored" or "exposed for sale". Even assuming the prosecution version of the sampling incident to be correct, there is no evidence led by the prosecution to show that the respondent was using the lal mirch in any food article or was selling the lal mirch to the customers or keeping the same for sale at his shop, where he was selling sweet meats.