SHAKUN Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No. I, namely, Miss Shakun, a Sales Supervisor in M/s Modern Bazar, shop No. 49, Basant Lok Shopping Centre, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, and Vishwant Kumar, petitioner No. 2 the proprietor thereof, were prosecuted tor offences under Section 2(ix)(k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on a complaint having been iiled in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate under the provisions of Sections 7/16 of the Act on the allegation that on 22nd April, 1983 at about 3.30 p.m. Food Inspector Jit Singh purchased a sample of supari from the said shop, for aaalysis, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder which was kept stored/exposed in the above premises for the purposes of sale, and this sample was found to be adulterated as well as misbranded on analysis by the Public Analyst in the report dated 19th May, 1983.

(2.) The petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 47/89, Sat Narain Kabra was prosecuted as proprietor of M/s. J.D. & Co , who was alleged to be the supplier of the aforesaid Supari out of which the sample had been purchased and found to be adulterated as well as misbranded.

(3.) After recording evidence of the prosecution before charge, and after hearing the prosecution as well as the accused through their respective counsel, the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 11th July, 1988 found it to be a case where it could not be said at that stage that the prosecution <PG>114</PG> had not produced such evidence which if unrebutted would not be sufficient to record conviction of the accused. He further held that the deceaces such as of warranty raised by accused No. I and 2, who are now petitioners before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 141/88, or that of accused Sat Narain Kabra, petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 47/88), that he bad not in fact supplied the goods, is such which requires to be proved by defence evidence, and that since prima facie as per report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, the sample had been declared to be adulterated due to presence of saccharin and also the label declaration had been opined to be faulty and not in conformity with requirements of rule 47 of the rules, framed under the Act; the accused persons were liable to be charged under section 2 (ix)(k) of the Act. He directed by his order dated 11th July, 1988 that charges be framed accordingly against all the accused persons.