AMRIK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE true import of the freshly added Clause (m) of Section 2 (ia) (vide Act 34 of 1976), of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1054, is the somewhat meaningful question which had necessitated this reference. Equally significant herein is the issue of the burden of proof under the proviso to Clause (m) aforesaid.

(2.) ON Feb. 24, 1978, P. W. Dr. J. K. Bajaj invested with the powers of Food Inspector visited the premises of the petitioner and found him in possession of 5 kilograms of sabat mash for public sale, in a tin, A sample of 750 grams thereof was taken in accordance with the statutory provisions against the payment of Rs. 2. 55 vide receipt exhibit PB. This sample was divided into three equal parts and put in three clean and dry bottles which were duly labelled, stoppered and fastened. Subsequent analysis of the sample by the Public Analyst, vide his Report Ex. PD, was to the effect that there were two rat-droppings found by him in the sample and further that the foreign inorganic matter therein was 2. 3 per cent against the prescribed limit of 1 per cent. The petitioner was brought to trial before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur and convicted under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur upheld both the conviction and the sentence of the petitioner.

(3.) THIS Criminal Revision had first come up before me sitting singly. Learned, counsel for the petitioner had argued that the burden of proof lay on the prosecution itself in the first instance to show that the variation from prescribed standard was not due to natural causes beyond the control of human agency. The true construction to be placed on Clause (m) and the modus of proof for the prescribed standard were also put in issue. In view of the matter being as yet res integra and not wholly free from difficulty, the case was referred for. an authoritative decision by the Division Bench.