KIMTI LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition, Kimti Lal petitioner assails his conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (for short the Act). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, vide his order dated August 18, 1980, sentenced him to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal upheld his conviction and sentence. He has now come up in revision.

(2.) THE broad outline of the prosecution case is that on 29th September, 1978. Megh Nath, Food Inspector, accompanied by Dr. J.S. Sohi and Dr. M.S. Rao went to the shop of Kimti Lal accused and purchased from him 600 grams of saunf for analysis on payment of Rs. 4/-, as its price. The sample sent to the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated as it contained extraneous matter 6.2% against the maximum prescribed standard of 5%. The Public Analyst also found one living weevil and two rat droppings in the sample.

(3.) THE main point that has been argued by the petitioner's counsel is that even though the report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample contained one living weevil and 2 rat droppings, be sides containing extraneous matter to the extent of 6.2% yet there was nothing on the record to disclose that the sample of saunf was injurious to health or the same was unfit for human consumption. He, therefore, submitted that no offence has been committed. Reliance is placed upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Raj Kumar 1983 FAC 200. In that case, it was observed that there was no evidence on the file that the saunf purchased by the Food Inspector was insect damaged or otherwise unfit for human consumption and that the mere presence of insects in a sample would not render the same adulterated. But the Supreme Court appears to have taken a different view in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia, 1979(II) FAC 218. On the basis of this decision, it is not now necessary for the prosecution to prove in the case of insect infested food that the same was unfit for human consumption. This decision of the Supreme Court is complete answer to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.