PREM SUNDER Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has been convicted under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai. Hence this revision.

(2.) THE Food Inspector purchased a sample of Ghee from the shop of the applicant on 31st July, 1973 at 9 a. m. in accordance with the provisions of law. He divided the sample into three parts one of which was sent for analysis. THE report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the Ghee was adulterated. It is also the case for the prosecution that the applicant was selling Ghee without a licence. On these charges, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above.

(3.) LEARNED counsel has then argued that the accused was not required to take a licence for the sale of Ghee. For this purpose he has referred to Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 which runs as follows.- "Conditions of Licence : (1) No person shall manufacture, sell, stock, distribute or exhibit for sale any of the following articles of Food except under a licence ; (a) milk of all classes and designations, (b) milk products such as cream, malai, curd, skimmed milk, curd, chhana, skimmed milk chhana, cheese, processed cheese, ice cream, milk condensed milk sweetened and unsweetened, condensed skimmed milk, sweetened and unsweetened milk powder, skimmed milk powder, partly skimmed milk powder, khoa, infant milk food table butter, deshi butter,...........................