STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. KEWAL KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR. Surinder Kumar Bansal, Food Inspector went to the shop of M/s Sham Lal and Sons at Malerkotla on 28-9-1983 at 12. 30 p. m. He was accompanied by Dr. Rakesh Kumar Chopra PW-3. After giving requisite notice, the Food Inspector took sample of saunf from out of 10 kg. of the commodity kept in polythene bag and meant for human consumption in the shop. The sample was divided into three equal parts and sealed in three dry and neat polythene bags and duly sealed. On analysis, the public analyst found the sample to be adulterated. Necessary notice with regard to the report of the public analyst was given to the accused. Kewal Krishan, Sham Lal and Inder Mohan, three partners of the aforesaid firm, were tried in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Malerkotla under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). By judgment dated May 27, 1985, the accused were acquitted. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.

(2.) AT the trial, the prosecution examined the Food Inspector, Dr. Surinder Kumar Bansal, PW-1 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Chopra, PW-3 and Siri Krishan, Senior Clerk office of the C. M. O. Local (Health) Authority, Sangrur. The plea of the accused in their statements under Section 313 was one of denial. They examined Yash Paul, D. W. 1 in defence. Yash Paul stated that at the time of taking of sample, Kewal Krishan, accused informed the Food Inspector that the saunf of which sample was taken, was meant for consumption by the cattle and the same was not meant for human consumption. He further stated that except Kewal Krishan who runs the shop known as Sham Lal and Sons, the remaining partners namely Sham lal and Inder Mohan were running a separate business in gur, shakar etc. in the Mandi. They were merely sleeping partners in Sham Lal and Sons.

(3.) ON an appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court held that the sample could not be considered to be adulterated as extraneous matter not exceeding 5 per cent was permissible in the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). It was also held that the prosecution failed to prove that the saunt in question was kept by the accused for human consumption. The learned trial court also held that prosecution was liable to fail because the public analyst did not declare that the sample was otherwise unfit for human consumption. The plea of the accused that the remaining two partners were sleeping partners was also accepted by the trial Court.