KRISHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a salesman on the English Wine Shop of M/s Naresh Kumar and Company, Wine Traders, Gharauada. On April 20, 1979, at 2 P M. Shri Kali Ram Food Inspector along with Dr. J. S. Sohi raided the said English Wine shop and found 19 quarter bottles of Imperial Whisky along with other brands of Whisky lying there. The Food Inspector purchased three quarters of Imperial Whisky as sample and sent the same to the Public Anaylyst for analysis. The Public Analyst found the sample to be misbranded as the alcoholic strength of the sample was found to be 78. 67, proof against the label declaration of 75 proof. The Food Inspector then filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE trial Court convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 16 (l) (a) (i) read with Section 7 of the Act and sentenced him to nine months rigorous imprisonment besides payment of fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer three months' rigorous imprisonment. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karaal, except reducing the substantive sentence to six months' rigorous imprisonment and the one in default of payment of fine to two months' rigorous imprisonment. Feeling aggrieved against the above referred orders of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

(3.) MR. H S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that alcohol or Whisky cannot be treated as food article as no standard of alcohol has been prescribed in the rules framed under the Act He further referred to Rule A. 29 01 of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, hereinafter called the Rules where under under the head of Beverages-ALCOHOLlc, only the standard of toddy has been prescribed. Thus, he maintained that whisky not being a food article, there is no question of its misbranding. Mr, J. B. Takoria, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, maintained that the term food article would embrace all articles consumed by human beings and thus even though no standard of alcohol is prescribed under the rules, it would still be a case of misbranding of food article, as defined in Section 2 (ix) (a) of the Act.