BHAJANLAL Vs. M.P. STATE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a complaint being filed against the applicant, the applicant was prosecuted for the aforesaid offences. In the complaint it was alleged that on 2-5-1970 the Food Inspector, Vishnu Chandorkar (PW1) purchased 48 ice-candies from the applicant out of the total stock of 800 ice-candies and when the same was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, it was found to contain saccharin an artificial sweetner, the addition of which is prohibited by Rule 44 of the Rule framed under the Act.

(2.) I am of the view that the conviction of the accused applicant deserves to be maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced to the extent and for the reasons given below.

(3.) The fact that ice-candy was purchased by the Food Inspector. Vithnu Chandorkar (PW1) from the accused-applicant, has been found established by both the learned lower Courts. This fact was also not challenged in this Court by the applicant. So far as the question of inadequacy of the quantity of the ice-candy purchased by the Food Inspector for the purposes of analysts is concerned, the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala Vs. Allassery Mohammad 1978(1) FAC 145, which has been relied upon by the learned appellate Court, is conclusive. In that case it has beach held that even if the quantity purchased is less than what is prescribed by the rule, but if the Public Analyst finds it sufficient for analysis then on that ground the conviction cannot be set aside. Learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, could not and in fact did not press this point in this Court.