LALCHAND Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application by the above-named applicant is against his conviction under Sec. 7(1) read with Sec. 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 passed against him.

(2.) In the complaint filed against the applicant by the Food Inspector it was alleged that on 19-12-1276 when the Food Inspector visited the Dal Mill owned and run by the applicant and his father Kanhaiyalal, there was a considerable stock of Udad-Mogar stored therein for sale. The Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of Udad-Mogar from the applicant and after observing the necessary formalities got the sample analysed by the Public Analyst, who vide his report, Ex. P/4, found that it contained 1.3% of inorganic matter; whereas according to the prescribed standard these contents should not be more than 1%. On this complaint the applicant and his father were prosecuted and tried. The defence of the applicant was that there was no sale by him; that what was purchased by the Food Inspector was not ready for sale as it required further cleaning and that no offence was committed by him or by his father. Learned trial Magistrate found both the accused guilty and sentenced them as aforesaid. On an appeal being filed by both the accused the learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted the father of the accused, but maintained the present applicants conviction and sentence.

(3.) In this Court it was contended that before the trial was concluded the applicant had submitted an application on 17.3.1978 that the sample deposited by the Food Inspector in the Court be got produced so that the seals affixed could be got compared; that there is a doubt as to the identity of the food grain allegedly purchased from the applicant being the same which was analysed by the Public Analyst; that before this sample was sent to the Public Analyst: the sample was neither properly sealed nor the Public Analyst compared the seals on the sample with the specimen seals sent to him; that a representative sample was not taken from the stock of foodgrain and that the Food Inspector, who filed the complaint, was not a validly appointed Food Inspector authorised to take action under the Act. In the alternative a prayer was made that considering the marginal excess of inorganic matter found in the sample, the sentence as awarded to the accused is severe. I have considered these contentions in the light of what was urged on behalf of the accused-applicant and the complainant also. In my opinion, this revision application deserves to be allowed on the question of sentence only.