IN RE V. GOVINDA RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The proprietor of Radharamana Bhavan Coffee and Meals Hotel, Masulipatam who has been convicted under Section 2 (1) (a) and Section 7 read with R. 46 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-is the petitioner. The case against him is that he was found stocking adulterated ghee intended for service and for preparation of food articles. That ghee has been found to contain 37 per cent of fat not derived from milk or cream. The question is whether the accused who is not in possession of ghee for the purpose of sale or sells ghee as such, but has stored ghee intended to be served with meals or in the preparation of an article of food viz., the preparation of dishes accomplying meals or as refreshments, could be found guilty of the offence charged with.

(2.) Mr. Adavi Rama Rao for the petitioner has contended that any storage of an adulterated article of food when it is not meant for sale as such would not constitute an offence when the accused is not a dealer in the article such as ghee in this case. When as in this case the accused is not only the manufacturer of an article of food but is in possession of ghee intended to be used in the article of food, the point for consideration will be whether such an act of possession of adulterated ghee in such circumstances could be an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. That section reads :

(3.) Therefore, viewed in any manner, the answer given by the accused to an enquiry made by the Food Inspector cannot alone be made the basis for successfully prosecuting the hotel-keeper, and especially so when the Food Inspector has not taken a sample of any preparation or made use of evidence or relied upon the evidence of any person to whom the food is served with this adulterated ghee.