LAWS(DLH)-1969-11-18

CHELA RAM Vs. STATE

Decided On November 07, 1969
CHELA RAM Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the conviction of the petitioner under section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and sentence of six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00.

(2.) Chela Ram, petitioner, is running a shop at Masjid Tewar Khan, Naya Bans, Delhi. On 21st March, 1967, at about 10 A.M. H.K. Bhanot, Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi purchased from him 450 grams of 'Haldi Sabat' after paying its price of 85 Ps. It was duly divided into three portions and sealed in three separate bottles. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst and on receiving a report that the sample was adulterated due to the presence of artificial colour, a complaint was filed against him under section 7/16 of the Act. During the trial the petitioner requested the court to send the other sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, and a report was received from the Director showing methanol yellow, non-permitted coal tar dye, having been found in the sample. After recording the evidence, the Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused who preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge which was dismissed.

(3.) The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his case falls under section 2(i)(1) of the Act and so the proviso (i) or (ii) to clause (f) to Sec. 16(1) of the Act becomes applicable. In other words the prayer is that the sentence imposed on the petitioner should be reduced to already undergone instead of imposing the minimum sentence of six months as provided for under section 16 of the Act. The reason given by him is that the standard has been prescribed for 'haldi' in rule A.05.01 in Appendix 'B' under rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, and since sample of 'haldi' does not conform to the standard, it falls below the prescribed standard. Moreover, according to him the charge only was that the 'haldi' was 'adulterated' and this, read with the report of the Public Analyst, gave an impression to the accused that his case was being tried under Sec. 2(i)(1) and not under Sec. 2(i)(j) of the Act under which he has been held guilty and sentenced. To appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel, it is necessary to reproduce certain rules.