MANGTA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 1 year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 by the Judicial Magistrate Muzaffarnagar. His conviction has been maintained by the V Addl. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar. The sentence of fine imposed upon him has also been maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment has been reduced from 1 year's R.I. to 6 months' R.I. vide aforesaid order of the Sessions Judge dated 1st Sept., 80. Hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned orders. A sample of Saunf (aniseed) was purchased by the Food Inspector from the shop of the applicant on 31st Aug., 78, at 9.30 A. M. in Mohallah Shekhomadan, Qasba Jhinjhana, Muzaffarnagar. The sample was divided in three parts, and the packets were sealed. One of the samples which was sent for report to the Public Analyst which revealed that it contained insect damaged Saunf (fennel whole) which exceeded the maximum prescribed limit of 5 per cent and the aniseed contained living and dead insects. After obtaining sanction for prosecution, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above.

(3.) The main point which has been argued by the applicant's counsel is that even though the report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the insect infested aniseed exceeded the permissible limit of 5 per cent, yet there was nothing on the record to disclose that dead or living insects contained therein, were injurious to health, and made the same unfit for human consumption. He, therefore, submits that no offence has been committed. Reliance for this purpose is placed upon a Supreme Court case Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Khacheru Mal, reported in 1975 (II) FAC 223, In that case their Lordship of the Supreme Court has observed that apart from the sample being insect infested, it is also necessary for the prosecution to prove that it was unfit for human consumption. Relying upon that case I had also given a decision reported in 1979 Allahabad Criminal Report page 34 : 1979 (II) FAC 91, Radhey Lal Gupta Vs. State and another. Applicant's counsel has now argued that in view of decision of the Supreme Court and my own decision, the applicant is entitled to get relief.