MAHADCO Vs. NAWAB KHAN, FOOD INSPECTOR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is aimed at setting aside the judgment of the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 1980, maintaining the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore, in Criminal Trial No. 1816 of 1977, finding the petitioner Mahadeo guilty of selling adulterated Coriander (Dhania) Powder prohibited under Sec. 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for three months and Rs. 500 fine, failing the payment of which he is to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Sec. 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) On 5-8-1977, the opponent No. 1 Nawab Khan Food Inspector in the Municipal Corporation, Indore (P. W. 1) with attesting witnesses including Krishnakant (P. W. 2) and Ganeshkumar (P. W. 3) went to the Grocery shop of the petitioner situated at 600/7, Nanda Nagar at 9 a.m. and after expressing his intention to buy coriander powder contained in a tin container for the purpose of its getting tested by the Public Analyst, bought 600 grams of it, paid its price, obtained its receipt, divided the bought powder after thoroughly mixing it in three equal parts, placing each part in a separate packet and properly sealing it sent one of the sample to the Public Analyst and the other two to the Local Health Authority. The Public Analyst vide report (Ex. P-4) found that the sample had moisture 8.4 per cent according to the standard it could have been even upto 12 0 per cent total ash 9.7 per cent by weight (whereas according to the standard it should not have been more than 7 0 per cent) and ash insoluble in dilute HG) 4.8 per cent (whereas it should have been not more than 1.5 per cent by weight). The establishment had stood in the name of Ramesh.

(3.) On these facts, the petitioner and the co-accused Ramesh were prosecuted for selling and permitting the selling of adulterated coriander powder prohibited under Sec. 7(1) and made punishable under Sec. 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore. The petitioner and the co-accused denied their guilt and the co-accused in particular explained that he had to do nothing with4 the selling of the powder in question They also examined three witnesses besides sending a sample through the Court to be examined by the Central Food Laboratory which found that though the moisture was only 9.0 per cent (that is to 3ay less than the standard), total ash was 9.1 percent (thereby showing a departure of 2.1 per cent and ash insoluble in dilute HC1 2 3 per cent (thereby showing a departure of 2.1 per cent and ash insoluble in dilute HCl 2.3 per cent (thereby showing a departure of 1.3 per cent).