MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a youngman aged 17 years, (age conceded by the trial Magistrate) was found to be selling bura or Bura Khand, and a sample purchased therefrom by the Food Inspector brought the result that sucrose content was 95 per cent by weight. It is on this result of the Public Analyst that the petitioner was tried and convicted under section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act) and imposed a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1.000/ -. The conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate was confirmed by the appellate Court. In revision, the Motion Bench only issued notice regarding quantum of sentence.

(2.) BEFORE this aspect is dealt with, it needs pointed attention that item A 07 02 occurring in the prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, reads as follows : "A 07.02 - Bura shall contain not less than 96.5 per cent of total sugars expressed as sucrose and shall not contain more than half per cent of its weight as ash in double in dilute hydrochloric acid. In the case of Khandsari, the minimum sugar content in terms of Sucrose shall not be less than 90 per cent. Bura and Khandsari may contain sulphur dioxide in concentration not exceeding 70 parts per million." Neither has the word 'Bura' nor 'Khandsari' been given legal definitions. In the absence thereof, the Courts have to attribute meanings to these words as they are commonly understood by the man in the street. Khandsari is also popularly known as Desi Khand. It is derived by the indigenous method of crashing cane juice, putting it to boil, brought to certain consistent density and then put in a container to crystalise. Same is the position with refinement of the two substances which distinguish Desi Khand and Bura. Distinguishing the two does not require an expert eye but the working eye of the consumer. The rule afore -quoted alone makes the distinction in the matter of percentage of total sugars expressed as sucrose. If it is 96.5 per cent and above it is Bura, but if it is shorter than that and rests 90 percent or above, it would be Khandsari. So at best the petitioner was guilty of mis -describing the substance being sold by him for the sucrose was 95 per cent. Perhaps it was Khandsari and was being sold as Bura. The naked eye of the Food Inspector suspected the misdescription, which ended up in the petitioner's trial and conviction.

(3.) SUCH activity of the petitioner would tend to bring the substance sold as 'adulterated', within the meaning of clause (ix) of section 2 of the Act, as being 'misbranded'. To cull out the applicable portion thereof to the instant case the law postulates that an article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded if it is sold by a name which belongs to another article of food. A misbranded article sold by anyone would visit on him penalties under section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Act and it is under this provision precisely that the petitioner has been convicted. If that is so, straightaway the proviso to section 16 comes into play, which says that the Court can, for any adequate and special reasons, to be mentioned in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months and a fine which shall not be less than Rs. 500/ - with respect to an article of food which is misbranded within the meaning of clause (ix) of section 2 of the Act. Thus, in the instant case for the marginal variation between the sucrose content, on the ostensible plea that Khandsari was being sold as Bura, the petitioner can be given the minimum sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. I should have opted in that direction, but since the Motion Bench has released the petitioner on bail, I would opt for the other alternative by releasing the petitioner on probation as permitted under section 20 -AA of the Act. The said provision enables the Court to release a person on probation convicted of an offence under 18 years of age. As said before, the finding of the trial Magistrate was that the petitioner on the date of the commission of the offence was 17 years of age. The facts and circumstances of the case clearly invoking of such provision, more so when no shady antecedents of the petitioner have even remotely been suggested on the record.