LALIT KISHORE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJESHWAR Singh, J. The Magistrate convicted Lalit Kishore under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated mustard oil and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprison ment for two years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500. On an appeal the Sessions Court maintained the conviction, but reduced the sentence to rigorous imprison ment for one year and fine of Rs. 2,000. In default of payment of fine, a further imprisonment for six months was ordered. Against the judgment the present revision has been filed.

(2.) THE Chief Food Inspector took the sample of mustard oil from the revisionist. THE Public Analyst reported that it was adulterated inasmuch as 33% Tisi Oil had been mixed with it. So, the revisionist was prosecuted. THE Chief Food Inspector came in the witness-box. He proved taking of the sample and other formalities. He mentioned that the shop-keepers, who had their shops close by, were called to be witnesses of taking of the sample, but they declined. THEre is one other witness who proved that the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the revisionist by registered post. THE learned trial court and appellate court have believed these witnesses and on perusal of the evidence I find that their evidence is prefectly reliable. THE matter seems to be virtually concluded by findings of fact.

(3.) IT is true that for the protection of the liberty of the citizens, in the definition of offences, blameworthy mental condition is ordinarily an ingredient either by express enhachment or clear implication, but in Acts enacted to deal with a grave social evil, or ensuring public welfare, especially in offences against public health, it is often found necessary in the larger public interest to provide for imposition of liability without proof of a guilty mind. Andhra Pradesh Grain and Seed Merchant's Association v. Union of India, (1970) 2 SCC 71. IT is not for the prosecution in a case under the Act to show that the adulterated article of food in question was deleterious to health and if so, how much harmful effect it would have upon the health of the person consuming it. All that is required to be shown is that the article of food in question was adulterated and did not conform to the prescribed standard. Manibai v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 3 SCC 760. IT is always open to a person selling an article capable of being used as an article of food as well as for other purpose to inform the purchaser by clear notice that the article sold or supplied is not intended to be used as an article of food. Andhra Pradesh Grain and Seed Merchants v. Union of India, (1970) 2 SCC 71.