PRAG NARAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant Prag Narain has been convicted by the Magistrate under Section 7(i) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. He was also convicted under Section 7(iii)/16 read with Rule 50 and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -. In Cr. Appeal No. 12 of 1972 the IV Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge Lucknow set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 7(iii)/16 read with Rule 50 but maintained the conviction under Section 7(i)/16 of the Act but reduced the sentence to one month's RI and a fine of Rs. 500/ - only. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has filed this revision.

(2.) THE applicant was doing grinding work at his chakki when he was checked by the Food Inspector on 29 -10 -1970 at about 1 -30 p.m. The Food Inspector took a sample of the Haldi which had been ground and kept in two bags. Price of 90 n.p. was also paid to him. The sample was taken in three bottles. These bags were given in the supardagi of the applicant and he was required to keep them safe with him. The usual notice and receipt were issued. The applicant clearly stated that it was taken from his chakki and that he was doing the grinding work only. The sample was found adulterated according to the report of the Public Analyst. The applicant was then prosecuted. He took the defence that the Haldi did not belong to him nor he was a seller. He was only doing grinding work at his flour mill. He also stated that no licence was needed as he was not selling any food article. Learned Magistrate, however, held him guilty on both counts, that is, for not possessing the licence as well as for selling the adulterated Haldi. In appeal, the learned Civil and Sessions Judge took the view that no licence was required because the applicant was not a seller and he was only doing grinding work. He, however, maintained the conviction of the applicant under Section 7(i)/16 as he took the view that sale to the Food Inspector was also a sale within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act. It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that sale to the Food Inspector is a sale within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act Vide the Food Inspector Calicut Corporation v. Charukettil Gopalan : AIR 1971 SC 1725 and Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel v. State of Maharashtra : AIR 1966 SC 128. But in those cases, the circumstances were such that the presumption could be raised that the article was meant for sale. In the present case, it was given out to the Food Inspector in the very beginning that the applicant was only doing grinding work. The article was not kept at his place for sole. In fact the very nature of the business which he was carrying on was such that he had no control over the property and he could not have even sold any sample. The Food Inspector obviously insisted on taking sample and gave the price and also asked him to keep the bags in his superdagi. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that he had kept price also on behalf of the real owner. It is difficult to term such a transaction as sale. The lower appellate court has held that the applicant is not a dealer and was not required to have a licence. In the case reported in : AIR 1971 SC 1725 (Supra), the question was left open whether the storage of the article must be for the purpose of sale (vide Para 19). In the present case, there can be not the least doubt that the article was not stored by the applicant at his chakki for sale. In my opinion, on the finding arrived at by the lower appellate court, the applicant was entitled to be acquitted as he himself was neither the dealer nor he had stored the article for sale nor he could actually sell that article on his behalf.