MUNICIPAL COMMITTE Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent Pritam Singh, 31 years old shopkeeper of Amritsar was prosecuted under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the complaint of Krishan Kumar, Food Inspector of the Municipal Committee, Amritsar. for selling adulterated ghee. Finding the charge proved against him. the trial Magistrate convicted him and sentenced him to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, In default of payment of fine the respondent was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appeal aeainst this order dated 17th of April 1969, was however, accepted by Shri K. S. Bhalla, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar- Aeainst this order of acauittal dated 4th of June. 1969. the Municipal Committee, lamritsar, has come up in appeal with the leave of this Court under Section 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations on which the respondent was tried, on the morning of 24th of May. 1967. the Municipal Food Inspector Krishan Kumar P. W. 1 went to the respondent's shoo and disclosing to him his identity purchased from him 450 grams of ghee on payment of Rs. 5/- vide receipt Exhibit PB- At the time of the purchase the notice Exhibit PA was given to the respondent in the presence of Ajit Singh and Naunihal Singh who attested the memos. The sample was duly divided into three parts and duly sealed in three dry bottles one of which was made over to the respondent as stated in the memo Exhibit PC The Public Analyst to whom this sample was sent for analysis, reported that the sample of ehee was adulterated as it did not conform to the specifications prescribed for ghee but was, on the other hand. 100 per cent, Van-aspati. Besides the Food Inspector Krishan Kumar P. W. 1, Naunihal Singh P- W. 2 appeared at the trial and supported the above allegations with regard to the sale of the sample of gheffbv the respondent to the Food Inspector.

(3.) THE respondent Pritam Singh while pleading not guiltv to the charge attempted to defend himself by denying that the sample of ghee was taken from him or that he was paid anything for it. He did not deny his signatures on the memos and the wrappears on the sealed bottles, but attempted to get out of his liabilitv by saving that his signatures were obtained on blank papers. He complained of false implication because of enmitv with the Food Inspector and Naunihal Singh P. W. 2, No evidence in defence was however, adduced. On careful scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, the learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution allegations and holding the case proved against the respondent convicted and sentenced him as stated earlier.