I M NAYAK Vs. KANTILAL AMBALAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant I. M. Nayak is a Food Inspector of The Surat Municipal Corporation. He filed a complaint registered as Prevention of Food Adulteration Case No. 93 of 1969 in the court of the Special Judicial Magistrate First Class Municipality Surat against (1) Shri Kantilal Ambalal Shah Proprietor of Comet Fruits and Chemical Industries Ahmedabad and (2) Shri Jayantilal Thakordas Saraiya alleging that accused No. 1 manufactured for sale honey an article of food under the trade name Kashmir Madhu which was not according to the standard prescribed in Appendix B annexed to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 The standard for honey is prescribed at item No. A. 07.03 which reads as under:-

(2.) The learned Magistrate held that accused No. 2 sold honey an article of food which was adulterated and accordingly convicted him for having committed an offence under sec. 7 read with sec. 16 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/in default to suffer S. I. for three months. The learned Magistrate held that even though accused No. 1 was shown to be the manufacturer of the article of food in question there is nothing to show that he had sold the same to accused No. 2 nor is there any evidence to show that accused No. 1 sold article of food at Surat and accordingly held accused No. 1 not guilty of the offence with which he was charged and acquitted him. The original complainant Food Inspector having been aggrieved with this order acquitting accused No. 1 has preferred this appeal.

(3.) Accused No. 1 appears to be carrying on business under the name and style of Comet Fruits and Chemical Industries at Ahmedabad. He appears to be a manufacturer of commodity known as Kashmir Madhu. According to the prosecution accused No. 1 sells and offers for sale honey under the trade name Kashmir Madhu while according to accused No. 1 Kashmir Madhu is an Ayurvedic medicinal preparation and it is not honey. Sealed bottles containing Kashmir Madhu with the labels thereon bearing the name Kashmir Madhu manufactured by Comet Fruits and Chemical Industries were stored for sale by accused No. 2 in his shop bearing the name Saraiya Medical Stores. The complainant purchased three sealed bottles of Kashmir Madhu and seals were opened in the presence of accused No. 2 and mixing the contents of all the three bottles the total quantity was divided into three equal parts and each part was poured in a bottle and each bottle was sealed. Now there is no dispute that the sample of honey when analysed by the Public Analyst did not conform to the standard prescribed for honey in Appendix `B annexed to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Therefore this Kashmir Madhu if it is honey and if it is not an Ayurvedic medicinal preparation would be an adulterated article of food. There is no dispute that if Kashmir Madhu is taken to be honey it is shown to be adulterated article of food. Accused No. 2 is convicted for having sold an adulterated article of food to the Inspector and he has not challenged his conviction by way of appeal.