STATE Vs. ISIIWARLAL CHHAGANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State of Bombay from a judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Surat, acquitting the respondent Ishwarlal Chhaganlal who was charged with having committed offences under s. 4, sub-s. (1), cls. (a) and (b) of the Bombay Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1925. It raises a short question under the Bombay Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1925, and the question is as to the construction of the words "purchased or obtained as agent" in cl. (a) of the proviso to sub-s. (3) of s. 4 of the Act, Do these words mean "purchased as agent or obtained as agent" or do the words "as agent" govern only the word obtained and not the word purchased The learned Sessions Judge, who has ordered the acquittal of the respondent, has held that the word purchased has no relation to the words "as agent" and is not to be read in conjunction with those words. On the other hand, the State contends that the words "as agent" are referable not only to the word obtained , but also to the word purchased and they are to be read with both the words purchased and obtained .

(2.) The above-mentioned point of law has arisen in this way: The respondent was charged with having sold to the Food Inspector of the Surat Borough Municipality, to the prejudice of the said Pood Inspector, an article of food purporting to be pure ghee,which was not in fact of the nature, substance or quality which it purported to be, and having exposed the said article for sale. The respondent is a partner in a firm which sells ghee at Surat, It is, not disputed that on April 28, 1953, the Pood Inspector of the Surat Borough Municipality visited the shop of the respondent s firm and purchased from the respondent three samples of ghee which were obtained in three different sets. It is also not disputed that two out of the three samples, which were purchased by the Pood Inspector from the respondent, were samples of pure ghee. The prosecution contention is that the third sample, which was sample No. 41 and which was sold by the respondent to the Pood Inspector, was adulterated ghee. It was sent to the Public Analyst, and the Public Analyst certified in respect of it that the Batyro Refractometer reading at 40 C was 46.5 and the Reichart Woolny value was 11.9. The Public Analyst further certified that the sample, which was submitted to him for examination, was adulterated ghee and that, foreign fat was present in it to the extent of 52.6 per cent. Upon the basis of the above-mentioned certificate of the Public Analyst, the State contended that under r. 6, sub-r. (B), cl. (1), of the rules framed umder s. 19 of the Bombay Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1925, a presumption should be raised against the respondent that the ghee sold by him to the Pood Inspector was not of the nature, substance or quality which it purported to be. It was upon these facts that the respondent was prosecuted for offences under s. 4, sub-s. (1), cls. (a) and (b) of the Bombay Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1925.

(3.) The respondent resisted the charges brought against him. He contended that his business was to sell "packed tins of ghee" purchased from Mehmadabad, Nadiad, Mahudha and other places. He further contended that he always took "great care" to purchase pure ghee and sell it. According to him, the tin from which ghee was sold by him to the Pood Inspector was purchased hy him from Dhulabhai Shankarbhai of Mahudha. He had told Dhulabhai Shankarbhai that he would not enter into transactions with his firm unless the firm sold pure ghee to him. He contended that he had purchased the ghee from Dhulabhai Shankarbhai under a warranty that the ghee was of the nature, substance and quality which it purported to be and that he had sold the ghee to the Pood Inspector in the same state in which he had purchased it. He had no reason to believe at the time of selling it to the Food Inspector that it was not of the nature, substance and quality which it purported to be. Upon these contentions, the respondent denied the charges which were brought against him by the State of Bombay.