RADHA KRISHNA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Radha Krishna was convicted under Section 16 (1) (a) (i ). Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for contravention of Section 7 (i) of that Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. His appeal against that conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Third Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur. This revision before this Court, has arisen in the, said circumstances, with the prayer that either the conviction be set aside as the commission of the crime was not established, or the sentence, at any rate, should be reduced.

(2.) A learned Single Judge issued a notice for enhancement of the

(3.) IN view of the notice for enhancement, the petitioner has become entitled under Section 439 (6 ). Code of Criminal Procedure, to show that the conviction itself is bad. His learned Counsel has argued that the petitioner did not sell any Ghee; and if it was found that he did sell, there was no reliable evidence to show that the Food Inspector had demanded purchase of pure Ghee and the petitioner had sold the commodity as such. These two contentions relate to the appreciation of evidence. The prosecution examined P. W. 1 Abdul. Ghaffar, Food Inspector. P. W. 2 Hari Kishan and p. W. 3 Ganga Prasad in proof of its story. Their evidence shows that Abdul Ghaffar reached the Ghee market of Sheoraipur at about 2. 30 p. m. on December 18, 1968 and found the petitioner exposing two canisters containing approximately 10 Seers of Ghee for sale. He disclosed his identity and Have notice in writing then and there of his intention to have the Ghee analysed. He purchased 300 grams on payment of Rs. 3. 60 and separated the sample then and there into three Darts and marked and sealed each part and delivered one of the parts to the petitioner from whom the sample had been purchased and retained the two parts himself. Hari Kishan happened to be present in the market as he-also wanted to purchase Ghee. Ganga Prasad is a peon and has accompanied Abdul Ghaffar. The petitioner stated that he had, purchased the Ghee through the broker Dhani Ram P. W. 1 in connection with the funeral ceremonies of his wife and had. kept it with him so that, in the meantime, he may do some other purchases and when he returned, he found that the sample had already been taken forcibly and that, as a matter of fact, the Ghee was neither intended for sale, nor was it sold. Dhani Ram and Babu Ram D. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined in defence. According to them, no sample was taken and instead one of the two canisters itself was taken away. The trial Magistrate, as well as the learned Sessions Judee. believed the prosecution witnesses and discarded the evidence of the witnesses examined by the petitioner, and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was present and exposing Ghee for sale and a sample was actually purchased for the price aforesaid. We do not find any adequate reasons to disagree with this finding of fact. The notice is on the record which shows that a sample of the Ghee was purchased for the purpose of analysis. The receipt is also on the record and shows that 300 grams were purchased for a price of Rs. 3. 60 and that price was actually paid to the petitioner. Both these documents bear the signatures of the petitioner. That being so, it is apparent to us that the argument advanced has no substance. The next question is as to what was sold, that is to say. Ghee or some inferior cooking medium. There is a particular section in the market at Sheoraipur, where producers of Ghee congrgate. and sell it to retailers or wholesalers through the agency of brokers and weighmen. Pure Desi Ghee is generally known as Ghee and a vegetable product commonly goes by the name of Dalda or Vanaspati. No one who intends to purchase Dalda or Vanaspati, will demand Ghee. Besides, the price charged was Rs. 3. 60 for 300 grams, that is to say, at the rate of Rs. 12/- per Kilogram which should have been the rate for pure Ghee and not for Dalda or Vanaspati or an admixture of Ghee and Dalda or Vanaspati. We may refer to rule 44, Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, also in this connection. Rule 44 (c) says that no person shall either by himself or by any servant or asent sell Ghee which contains any added matter not exclusively derived from milk fat. This statutory rule thus places a total prohibition upon any addition in Ghee. Again, when a purchaser demands Ghee, he gives ample notice to the seller that the commodity that he wants is known as Ghee and the seller also understands what is demanded from him. Now, Section 23 (i) (b) gives power to the Central Government to make rules defining the standards of duality for. and fixing the limits of variability permissible in respect of any article of food. Rule 5, appendix 1 relates to definitions and standards of duality and says that standards of Quality of the various articles of food specified in appendix B are as defined in that appendix. Item A 11. 14 says that Ghee means the pure clarified fat derived solely from milk or from curd or from. Desi (cooking) butter or from cream to which no colouring matter or preservative had been added. Thus the statutory provision also defines what Ghee is and the petitioner ought to have known what it is. The well-known maxim ignorantia legis non excusat will toe applicable. That being so, this contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no substance.