HARNAM DAS Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Mathura, dated 7-12-1972, dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant against his conviction under Sec. 7/16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act (briefly stated as 'the Act'). It appears that according to the case of the prosecution, on 27-12-1971 at about 3.00 P.M. the Food Inspector inspected the shop of the applicant in Bara Bazar, Sadar Bazar, Mathura, and found him selling and exposing for sale Arhar Dal. The Food Inspector purchased 750 grammes of Arhar Dal for Rs. 1.50 Paise. After having divided it in three bottles, he sent one of them to the public analyst. The public analyst reported that the sample was coloured with an unpermited coaltar dye, namely, metanil yellow. A charge sheet was, thereafter, submitted against the applicant. The applicant took up the defence that the Dal was not meant for sale to the public. The Magistrate accepted the case of the prosecution and disbelieved that of the applicant. Having found that the applicant was guilty of selling the adulterated Dal, which was coloured with an unpermitted coaltar dye, convicted him u/s 7/16 of the Act and sentenced him to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. In appeal, which was only argued on the question of sentence by the applicant, the sentence of one year was reduced to six months' R.I., but the fine of Rs. 1000/, which is the minimum prescribed under the Act, was maintained. Aggrieved, the applicant has come to this Court.

(2.) The argument advanced on behalf of the applicant was that as the minimum quantity required to be taken possession of by the Food Inspector under Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the Act was more than 750 grammes of Dal, therefore, the sample having not been taken in that quantity, the conviction of the applicant was bad. The submission is not correct inasmuch as under Rules 22, for the pulses, the requisite quantity of sample which was required to be taken by the Food Inspector was 250 grammes. Accordingly, this submission has no substance.

(3.) The second submission was that the Dal found from the possession of the applicant was not meant for being sold to the public, hence no offence was committed by the applicant so as to invoke the provisions of the Act. Firstly, the Magistrate has recorded a finding against the applicant on this controversy, and that the same was not challenged in appeal before the Sessions Judge. As observed above, the appeal was argued only on the question of sentence. The applicant now cannot be permitted to challenge the aforesaid binding of the Magistrate. Even otherwise, the finding of the Magistrate does not appear to be incorrect requiring interference in the present proceedings. It may be noted that the present is a revision in which only an error of law can be corrected or seen and not that of fact.