LACHHMAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to three months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora. His conviction and sentence have been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Almora. Hence this revision Sri Devi Datt Pandey, Food Inspector, along with two others visited the shop of the applicant Lachhman Singh on 24th April 1976 at 11.30 A.M. He suspected that the accused was selling adulterated Dhania. After giving due notice he purchased a sample of Dhania and obtain­ed a receipt in token of the sale. The Dhania was sealed in three packets of equal quantity. One such packet was sent to the Public Analyst for chemical examination. The report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample of Dhania contained extraneous matter be­yond the permissible limit, vide Ex. Ka-3. Sanction for prosecution Ex. Ka-5 was granted by the Medical Officer of Health, Almora. The applicant was thereafter prosecuted and convicted as above.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the parties. Two questions of law have been raised in this revision. The first question is that there has been no infringment of Rule A.05,08 framed under the provisions of the Food Adulteration Rules. Second­ly, that the Medical Officer of Health did not apply his mind to the question of sanction and therefore, the same is invalid and the prosecution of the applicant is legally vitiated.

(3.) LEARNED counsel has submitted that per the aforesaid report the total per­centage of extraneous matter is 23.20%. Out of this, insect damaged Dhania is 19.35%. Therefore the balance of extra­neous matter is 3.85%. His argument is that the percentage of 3.85% is much below than the permissible percentage of extraneous matter of 8% by weight, as alleged by Rule A.05.08, Appendix E. In order to test the correctness of this argument, it would be necessary to quote the rule in question :-