STATE OF M.P. Vs. GANESHRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is State's appeal under Sec. 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 3-9-1979 passed by Shri R.P. Tiwari, II Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, acquitting the respondent Ganeshram of offence under Sec. 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 6-7-1977 the Food Inspector, Shanker Rao purchased 450 grams of Khaskhas from the respondent which has been found adulterated according to the report of the Public Analyst, Raipur, Ex. P-7. The Public Analyst found that the sample of Khaskhas contained 0.995 per cent. Organic extraneous matter; 4.69 per cent moisture and 27.77 per cent non-volatile extracts. According to the Public Analyst the sample was below standard. The case was tried by the Chief Magistrate, Durg who convicted the appellant for the offence and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to a further rigorous imprisonment of 6 months. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the report of the Public Analyst does not give the weight on the basis of which the percentage is arrived at. Relying on the decision of this Court in Karam Chand Vs. State of M. P., 1978 M.P.L. J. Note 4 , learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the data on the basis of which the sample was held to be below standard was missing and hence the responsibility cannot be fastened on the accused person. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also held that it was for the prosecution to prove the case against the accused persons beyond doubt. In the absence of such a proof the conviction and sentence was set-aside and the accused respondent acquitted.

(3.) The case has been argued with vehemence by Shri A. P. Shukla, learned Deputy Government Advocate. His submission is that the burden of proving his innocence lies on the accused persons which the accused person has failed to discharge. According to the learned counsel, the only obligation of the prosecution is to file the report of the Public Analyst and get it exhibited in the Court. In case any further material or data was required it was for the respondent accused person to summon Public Analyst and obtain the same. Learned counsel also placed reliance on Sec. 2(ia)(l) of the Act to show that the offence has been committed. I must confess that inspite of lot of patience hearing and serious efforts made by me I have not been able to understand the argument of the learned counsel. The challan as originally filed, was for an offence punishable under Sec. 16(1) of the Act. Sec. 16(1) prescribes penalties for various offences prescribed under the Act. The offence is committed under Sec. 7 which prohibits manufacture for sale or storage or distribution of adulterated food. Adulterated food has been defined under Sec. 2(ia) of the Act. Sub-section (1) of this section on which the reliance is placed reads as under :