MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, AMRITSAR Vs. LAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAL Chand was convicted under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the trial Magistrate and sentences to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/ -. The appeal filed by lal Chand was accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Against the order of acquittal, the Municipal Committee has preferred this appeal.

(2.) IT was alleged against Lal Chand that on 22nd August, 1967, Om Parkash, Food Inspector, on checking his shop situate in the town of Amritsar found 7 kilograms of ladoos of bundi for sale. In the presence of Harbhajan Singh and Daulat Ram, the Food Inspector observed the formalities and took sample of the ladoos weighing 1500 grams on payment of Rs. 6.37. The sample was divided into three parts and transferred in three dry bottles which were duly stoppered and labelled. One of the bottles was made over to Lal Chand. The second was kept in deposit and the third bottle was sent to the Public Analyist whose report Exhibit P.F. showed that the ladoos contained prohibited yellow coaltar dye.

(3.) IN the course of the trial, the Magistrate sent one of the two remaining samples to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the Director). Upon receiving the certificate of the Director that the ladoos in questions were adulterated, the Magistrate used it against Lal Chana. The action taken by the Magistrate did not find favour with the Additional Sessions Judge who expressed the view that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to do so. Support was sought from the provisions of subsection (2) of section 13 of the Act which empowered either the vendor or the complainant to send his sample to the Director. In expressing himself in rather strong language, the Additional Sessions Judge completely lost sight of the fact that section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) was all the same there to authorise the Magistrate to do so. It is pertinent that section 5 of the Code provides that all offences shall be tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of the Code if the offences are under the Penal Code, and trial of offences under any other law shall also be according to the provisions of the Code, but subject to any enactment regulating the manner of trial. Nothing has been brought to our notice depriving a Magistrate of his power under section 540 of the Code.