BHOLANATH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant No. 1 Bholanath has been convicted under Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for storing for sale articles of food without licence. The other two applicants have been convicted for selling articles of food to the applicant No. 1 without giving warranty.

(2.) The story is that the Food Inspector Arjunsingh visited the applicant No. 1's cloth shop and found articles of food like gur, jeera, dhaniya, sugar, biscuits lying there. Upon being asked whether he held any licence for sale of articles of food, he said he had. none. He also gave out that the articles were purchased from the applicants 2 and 3 respectively for puja.

(3.) Karunakant Pande (P.W. 3), before whom the shop was inspected, gives us to understand that the said articles were in very small quantity of 1/4 Kg. each, wrapped in paper-packets. They were in the form of khada-masala, i.e., still un-powdered. It was obvious that the stuff was purchased for personal kitchen use or for puja as the applicant No. t disclosed. The articles could not possibly be for sale. The quantity of 1/4 Kg each indicated that.