LACHMI NARAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case is the owner of a shop in Gadodia Market. On 30-3-1965 at about 4-30 P.M. his shop was visited by three food inspectors, namely, Shanti Nath, Dina Nath and L. R. Bhatt. Each of the three inspectors lifted two samples of turmeric from bs of un-ground turmeric lying for sale in the shop. Each Inspector prepared a memo in respect of each sample according to rules and also paid the necessary price for the samples taken by them. The memos Exhibits PI 4 to PI 6 which were placed on record purport to bear a writing in landa script in hand-writing of the petitioner admitting that a sample of turmeric (un-ground) was given by him. The food inspectors also filed in three proformas on Form VI according to rule 12 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, hereafter to be referred to as the Rules and sent their reports to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for a complaint being lodged against the petitioner for contravention of section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereafter referred to as the Act. Eventually three of the samples viz. two samles taken by Food Inspector Shanti Nath and one by Dina Nath, were found by the public analyst to be adulterated. Exhibits P5 to P7 are the reports of the Public analyst declaring the samples to be adulterated.

(2.) On a complaint filed by the Municipal Corporation through the Assistant Municipal Prosecutor, the three food inspectors, Shanti Nath, Dina Nath, L. R. Bhatt, Sat Pal driver and R. N. Gujral, Assistant Municipal Prosecutor were examined as witnesses in support of the prosecution case. The three food inspectors and Sat Pal deposed that samples were lifted by Shanti Nath and Dina Nath according to the rules and the purchase memos bearing the hand-writing of the petitioner admitting the sale of samples to the food inspectors were duly prepared. They also proved the receipts with regard to the payment of price and the proformas in Form VI which were thumb-marked by the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner denied the prosecution story but expressed his inability to affirm or deny the facturn of his having written in his own hand-writing that samples of turmeric were given by him from his shop or the factum of his having thumb-marked the receipts or the proformas. He explained his inability to make a categorical statement on that point on account of his weak eye-sight, but went on to add that as far as he remembered the proformas were not signed by him. He examined defence- witnesses to establish that at the relevant time he was lying in front of shop No. 32 which belonged to Messers Bansi Dhar Behari Lal and was closed on that day and that samples were not taken from his shop in his presence but were instead implanted on him.