MITHUNLAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No. 2, Ram Nivas, has a grocery shop at Pipli. Petitioner 1 is a relation of petitioner 2 and works as a helper in the said shop. There was a bag of Arhar Dal in the shop on 17.8.1961 for sale. That day, at about 12 noon, the Food Inspector purchased 750 grams of Arhar Dal on payment of 95 paise. After serving on the two petitioners notice as required under Section 11 of the Food Adulteration Act, the Food Inspector obtained a receipt (Ext. 2) under the joint signature of the petitioners. In that receipt the petitioners acknowledged having sold 750 grams of Arhar Dal at the market price of 95 paise. The Food Inspector divided the purchased sample into three parts, and sealed them in three clean bottles; one bottle was given to the accused -petitioners, one was sent to the Public Analyst, and the third was kept by the Food Inspector for production in Court at the time of trial.

(2.) THE Public Analyst reported that the sample contained foreign material 30 per cent., damaged grains 34.5 per cent., uric acid content due to insect damages - 45 mill -grams per 100 grams; Weevils were also present.

(3.) THE petitioners filed an appeal against their conviction and sentence by the trial court. The Sessions Judge confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Hence this revision by the petitioners.