NAGAR SWASTHA ADHIKARI Vs. MOOL CHANDRA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against order dated 18-12-77 in case No. 1455 of 76 by Sri Yashpal Lukaria, Munsif Magistrate 1st Class Agra who acquitted respondent Mool Chandra and Dhurey Lal under Sec. 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) It appears that Sri Ambika Prasad, P.W. 1 found the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 selling 'am ka rus ka khata mitha papar' on 8-9-74 at about 11 A.M. in Adhiyapal Ram Ratan Marg near Piau Chauraha, St. Johas College. M.G. Road crossing Agra. Food Inspector purchased 600 gms. Papar for a sum of Rs. 6/- after disclosing his identity vide notice Exh. Ka. 1. Receipt is Exh. Ka 2 which was execute by appellant in presence of witnesses Bibu Lal, Mingal Sen, Bhurey Lal etc. The sample was divided in three equal portions and one part thereof in accordance with rules was sent to U.P. Public Analyst for analysis vide Exh. Ka 4. Public Analyst reported that the sample was coloured with coaltar dye namely orange 11 colour Index No. 15510 the use of which was not permitted On receipt of this report the appellant was informed through registered post and necessary sanction for prosecution Exh. Ka 6 was procured from Dr. Narendra Nath; complaint was filed. Appellant in his statement denied the aforesaid allegations and alleged that although the Papar was purchased but its price was not paid; he purchased the Papar from market. He was not a dealer in Papars. Prosecution examined Food Inspector Sri Ambika Pd. P.W. 1 and Babu Lal P.W. 2 in support of their story and filed seven documents proved by Food Inspector Sri Ambika Prasad P.W. 1 in his statement.

(3.) One Lakshman Prasad was examined in defence to testify that respondents were vegetable sellers and did not deal in Papars. Learned trial Magistrate disbelieved the defence but found that as Food Inspector seized sample to the extent of 600 gms only so he did not comply with rule 22 of the Food Adulteration Rules under which at least 1500 gms. of papar must have been purchased to enable the Public Analyst to examine at least 500 gms. of Papar and so on the basis of decision of Supreme Court reported in Rajal Das Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1975 (I) FAC I he acquitted the respondents.