STATE Vs. RAMANLAL JAMNADAS GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent Ramanlal Jamnadas Gandhi by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana, for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Pood Adulteration Act, 1954, which will hereafter be referred to as the Adulteration Act. The accused is the owner of a grocery shop at Loteshvar, Patan. On November 6, 1958, the Food Inspector of the Patan Municipality visited his shop in the evening and purchased a sample of tea kept by the respondent for sale in his shop. In all 8 oz. of tea was purchased and the Inspector paid its price. The tea so purchased was divided into three parts and one of the parts was sent to the Public Health Laboratory, Baroda, for analysis. The Public Analyst certified that the tea was adulterated and that certificate is exh. 8. The Managing Committee of the Patan Municipality, by Resolution No. 1258 of 1958, decided to prosecute the accused, and accordingly a complaint was filed by the Food Inspector charging the accused with having committed an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE defence of the respondent was that he had not sold the tea to the Food Inspector, but that it was the Inspector who took a quantity of tea from his shop though he was told by the respondent that it was not for sale. That is why he contended that he was not guilty of the offence with which he was charged. In the trial Court, the respondent also made a grievance that the sample sent to the Public Analyst by the Food Inspector was less than 4 ozs. in quantity and, therefore, Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (which will hereafter be referred to as the Rules), was also contravned. On that ground also he pleaded that he could not be convicted of the offence with which he was charged.

(3.) AGAINST this v conviction and sentence, the respondent filed an appeal, and that appeal was heard by the Court of Session at Mehsana. In the appellate Court, a further contention was raised on behalf of the respondent, and that was that the report of the Public Analyst did not show that the analysis of the sample of tea sent to him was carried out in accordance with Article 14 of Appendix B to the Rules. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the report did not mention that the total ash was made of tea leaves dried to a constant weight at a temperature of 100oC., that it did not show that the dry tea leaves were boiled, that it did not also show that the water used was distilled water and the boiling was for one hour, and further that this was done under reflux. According to the learned Sessions Judge, as the water extract stated in the report of the Public Analyst was 33.5 per cent., while according to Article 14 it should not be less than 35 per cent., the variance was of a very small nature, and if the analysis was not carried out strictly in accordance with Article 14 of Appendix B to the Rules, then some variation was bound to arise even if the sample was not adulterated. The Sessions Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove that the sample of tea was adulterated. As regards Rule 22, the learned Sessions Judge held that the quantity of the sample of tea sent to the Public Analyst would, on the evidence, be about 2.2/3 ozs. whereas the approximate quantity required under Rule 22 was 4 ozs. There was no explanation given by the prosecution why the Inspector did not send the quantity prescribed in Rule 22, and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was inclined to draw an inference in favour of the accused to the effect that the less quantity of tea sent to the Public Analyst may have resulted in a proper test not being carried out by the Public Analyst and, therefore, his report could not be taken as correct. On these findings, the appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and the sentence imposed upon the accused under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Adulteration Act and directed that the accused should be acquitted. Against this order of acquittal, the present appeal has been filed.