(1.) The applicant has been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Third Court, Thana, of an offence under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- His appeal from the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thana.
(2.) It is common ground that Food Inspector Shimpi of Thana went to the shop of the applicant on 12-7-1956 and purchased 3/8th seer of Begum ghee for Rs. 1/4/- after informing the applicant's servant Fulchand Faujmal, who was on duty in the shop at the time, that he intended to send a sample of the ghee for analysis to the Public Analyst. He then divided the ghee into three samples, one of which was given to Fulchand, one was sent to the public Analyst and the third was kept by the Inspector himself. The report of the Public Analyst showed that the sample of ghee contained 21.86 per cent foreign fat. After obtaining the requisite sanction of the Administrator of the Thana Borough Municipality, the Inspector filed the complaint in question.
(3.) It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the complaint as it was originally filed is bad in law because it was based upon a sanction which stated that the name of the accused was Budhmal Kantilal. Now it may be mentioned that the applicant trades in the name of Budhmal Kantilal and that is how the mistake had occurred. Later when the mistake that the applicant's name was not Budhmal Kantilal but Budhmal Foujmal, was discovered, the complainant had the name corrected. It is contended, however, on the applicant's behalf that the original sanction was in the name of a wrong person and therefore, it would not be rectified, nor could a complaint filed on the basis of such a sanction be held to be in proper form. In my opinion, there is no substance in this contention. There was merely an error in specifying the name of the applicant and that is all. At no time was Shimpi in doubt as to whom he wanted to prosecute.