MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. BUTA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMARJIT Singh, his father Buta Singh and Chattar Singh were tried in the Court of Magistrate First Class, Amritsar, for an offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (No. 37 of 1954), (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The learned Magistrate convicted Amarjit Singh and Chattar Singh, and sentenced the former to pay a fine of Rs. 800 and the latter to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 800. Buta Singh was acquitted Municipal Committee, Amritsar, has filed this appeal by Special Leave under Sub-section (3) of Section 417, Criminal P. G. , against the acquittal of Buta Singh.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 21st January 1963 Food Inspector Ram Parkash went to the shop of the accused in Bazar Dhab Wasti Ram, Amritsar, wh$re business is carried on under the name and style of Buta Singh Kuldip Singh. Amarjit Singh accused was present at the shop and was selling Haldi. The Food Inspector, after giving due notice to Amarjit Singh, purchased 450 grams of Haldi for 90 paise. The Haldi was divided into three equal parts and was put into bottles which were sealed. One of the bottles was handed over to Amarjit Singh another was retained by the Food Inspector and a third was sent to the Public Analyst whose report Exhibit P. F. , showed that the Haldi was adulterated as it contained rice starch to an extent of about 80 per cent. On complaint Exhibit P. G. having been filed by the Food Inspector, the three accused were tried. Food Inspector Ram Parkash was examined as a witness in respect of the above allegations.

(3.) AMARJIT Singh accused, who is a student of a college, in his statement under Section 342, Criminal P C stated that on the day in question he was called" by Chattar Singh accused and was asked to look after the shop as Chattar Singh was going out for about an hour. Amarjit Singh admitted having sold Masala, to the Food Inspector, and, according to him it was not Haldi. Amarjit Singh added that a board had been affixed on the shop stating that the articles sold therein were meant for animal feed and not for human consumption. Chattar Singh accused admitted that he was proprietor of firm Buta Singh Kuldio Singh. According to him, the articles sold from the shop were meant for animal feed and not for human consumption. Buta Singh accused stated that though he was the proprietor o| the shop in question, it was Chattar Singh who worked at the shop and managed it. According to Buta Singh, he worked in the village and did not work at the shop in question. In. defence Uttam Singh was examined, and according to him Buta Singh lived in village Sohal where he owned land and did not work at his shop in the city.