IQBAL MUSABHAI HUNANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Bulsar at Navsari on 29/11/1983 in Criminal Case No. 1925 of 1982 as affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bulsar at Navsari on 29/03/1984 in Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1983 is under challenge in this revisional application preferred by the original accused.

(2.) . The facts giving rise to this revisional application are not many and not much in dispute. Respondent No. 1 herein went to the shop of the present petitioner and purchased from him an article of food by the name of Khajur with silver leaf coated thereon by way of sample in the required quantity. He divided the sample into three parts. He placed each part in a plastic polyethylene bag. Each bag was properly packed and sealed after placing the memorandum in Form No. 7 as required. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst for his analysis and report. The report of the Public Analyst on analysis of the sample indicated that the silver leaf as coated on Khajur did not contain any silver but it contained only aluminium. In other words, in the name of silver what was used was aluminium. According to the report of the Public Analyst, the component of the silver leaf found in the sample was not in consonance with the standard prescribed therefor under the law. The case papers were put up before the Assistant Director and Local Health Authority, Food and Drugs Control Administration, Surat for sanctioning the prosecution against the present petitioner. The sanctioning authority, by his order passed on 29/03/1982, accorded his sanction to prosecute the petitioner. Thereupon respondent No. 1 herein filed his complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Bulsar at Navsari charging the petitioner with the offences punishable under Sec. 7(i) and Sec. 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('the Act' for brief). It came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 1925 of 1982. The petitioner as the accused did not plead guilty to the charge. Thereupon he came to be tried. After the prosecution evidence was recorded, his further statement came to be recorded. After hearing the parties, by his judgment and order passed on 2 9/11/1983 in Criminal Case No. 1925 of 1982, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Bulsar at Navsari was pleased to convict the petitioner of the offence punishable under Sec. 15(l)(a)(i) of the Act and to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment of six months and to fine of Rs. 2.000/ -in default of which simple imprisonment of three months. The aggrieved accused carried the matter in appeal before the Session Court at Bulsar. His appeal came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1983. It came to be assigned to the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bulsar at Navsari. By his judgment and order passed on 29/03/1984 in Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1983, the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bulsar at Navsari was pleased to dismiss the appeal. The aggrieved accused has thereupon invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court for questioning the correctness of the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the Courts below.

(3.) . Shri Shah for the petitioner has urged before me several submissions in support of this revisional application. The one which has appealed to me most is that no standard for pan-masala has been prescribed and, in absence of any evidence on record to the effect that aluminium leaf was injurious to health, use of such leaf for coating Khajur would not make that article of food adulterated. In support of his submission Shri Shah has relied on the ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ramkishan Gangadin Yadav, reported in 1980 (II) FAC 107. As against this, Shri Dave for respondent No. 2-State and Shri Patel for respondent No. 1 (the original complainant) have submitted that silver leaf used by the present petitioner for selling the article of food in question was not conforming to the prescribed standard, and as such it would render the article of food in question adulterated. Both of them have tried to distinguish the aforesaid ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ramkishau ffaigadin Yadav (supra) on the basis of the facts involved therein.