R J GUJAR Vs. JAMNADAS GOPALJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the Food Inspector of the Akot Municipal Council challenging the judgment of acquittal of the respondent No. 1, who was acquitted of the offence under Section 16 (1) (B) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) THE facts in this case are not disputed. The respondent No. 1 is a Kirana merchant, who deals, among other articles, in a product called Anik Ghee", which is product of Hindustan Lever Limited. The complainant went to the shop of the respondent No. 1 at about 11. 20 A. M. on 19-8-1966 and asked him to sell him a sample of the quantity of 450 grains out of a sealed container weighing 2 kg. which was kept for sale in the shop by the accused. The complainant served a notice on the respondent No. 1 that the sample of the food article "guaranteed pure Anik Ghee" which was stocked in his grocery shop for sale in the packing of 2 kg. was to be sent for analysis, and therefore, 450 grams of "anik Ghee" should be given to the Food Inspector. The respondent No. 1 received this notice and endorsed thereon that he sold packed tins of "anik Ghee" of Hindustan Lever Limited, Bombay, and that he did not sell in small quantity from the packed tin. He further stated "if you require, you can purchase a packed tin. " 2a. The Food Inspector, however, carried the impression that he had no power to purchase a quantity larger than 450 grams of sample of food-stuff, and therefore, He did not purchase the whole container. He prepared a memo reciting all these facts in the presence of the two Panchas whom he had taken with him. According to the Food Inspector, this failure of the respondent No. 1 to sell 450 grams of Anik Ghee after breaking open the sealed container amounted to preventing him from taking a sample and e had thus committed an offence under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act. He, therefore, filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akot, reciting all these facts. It is not necessary to reproduce all the contents of the complaint except the one relating to the explanation of the complainant why he did not purchase a larger quantity than 450 crams. In the complaint it is stated as follows:--

(3.) THE complainant examined himself and admitted in the witness-box that the accused was willing to sell the whole tin if the complainant so wanted. He sticks to the explanation why he did not purchase the whole tin by stating that as per law he could not take more than 450 grams of sample. The defence of the accused was that he was not permitted to sell retail quantity of Anik Ghee and this defence was put to the complainant in cross-examination, and in cross-examination the complainant admitted that the accused had not sold any loose Ghee from the tin in question. The warranty which was issued to the dealer by the Hindustan Lever Limited in respect of this article was put to the complainant in cross-examination.