MOHAMMAD ALI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was prosecuted under Sec. 7/16 (i) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and also for violation of the provisions of R.I. 50 of the Rules framed under the Act. According to the prosecution, on 25-12-77 at about 9 A.M. the applicant was seen by the Food Inspector with cans of milk. The Food Inspector suspecting it to be adulterated milk took sample which was sent for examination by public analyst. The report of the public analyst indicated that the milk was deficient in fat contents by 17% and in non-fatty solids by 22%. A sanction was sought for from the Chief Medical Officer which was duly granted and in pursuance of the same the prosecution was instituted. Before the trial court the prosecution examined the Food Inspector. The accused also examined one witness Ram Sahai in defence. The trial Court believing the prosecution evidence found the applicant guilty and convicted him under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and also under R.I. 50 of the Rules framed under the Act. A sentence of one year R.I. and Rs. 1,000.00 line were awarded under Sec. 7/16 of P.F.A. Act and a sentence of 6 months R.L and Rs. 1,000.00 fine were awarded under R.I. 50 of the Rules framed under the Act. Feeling aggrieved the applicant preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed.

(2.) In this revision the learned counsel for the applicant has first challenged the orders of the two courts below on the ground that from the evidence on the record it was clearly proved that no sale took place and thus the applicant could not be convicted of having committed an offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Act. I have carefully gone through the two judgments and, in my opinion, the two courts below have rightly held that there was a sale, relying on the evidence led by the prosecution. Sri B.L. Dohrey, has in his testimony clearly stated that he purchased the sample of milk from the applicant. The finding recorded, in my opinion, does not suffer from any illegality requiring interference in this revision.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant then contended that the applicant having been found guilty under Sec. 7(l)/16(l)(a) (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, he could not be convicted for having violated the provisions of R.I. 5i of the Rules framed under the Act. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court reported in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Darshan Kumar 1979(1) FAC 124 . In the aforesaid case the question which arose for consideration was whether a person selling adulterated milk can be convicted and punished for the same without a licence. It was held that a person cannot be punished for contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules of food he is being punished for adulteration, relying on a decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in Vasudeo Bhat Vs. Ganpat 1975 (II) FAC 404. The learned counsel appearing for the State has not been able to show me as to how the law Laid down in the case of Delhi Municipal Corporation (supra) either requires re-consideration or does not apply to the facts of the present case. I am in complete agreement with the view taken in the aforesaid case. For the reasons stated in the case of Delhi Municipal Corporation (supra) the applicant could not be convicted of having violated the provisions of R.I. 50 of the rules framed under the Act, he having been found guilty of selling the adulterated food. The conviction of the accused-applicant under R.I. 50 is, therefore, liable to be set aside.