RAMESHWAR DASS RADHEY LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMESHWAR Dass, petitioner is admittedly the proprietor of 'aggarwal Dairy at kamla Nagar, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. It is also not disputed that under the said name and style the petitioner is carrying on the business of sale of milk and manufacture and sale of cream and butter. On 12th December, 1962, P. W. 1 Shri Hans Raj sud, Food Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Delhi, along with some Food inspectors, peons etc. , and a supervisor raided the shop of the petitioner and took therefrom two samples of cream--one sample of milk and one sample of the disputed article which was described by the raiding party at desi Ghee. A memo (Exhibit P. B.) was prepared by the Food Inspector in connection with the taking of the specimen of ghee from the shop of the petitioner for getting the same analysed. Memo (Exhibit P. C.) was prepared regarding the taking over of the said sample. This Memo, is on a printed form in English and Hindi and was filled in by the Food inspector. Under the Hindi version which is not filled in and is blank the Food inspector got the signatures of the petitioner in Urdu. According to the printed certificate in English filled in by the Food Inspector in form Exhibit P. C. the petitioner had declared that he had stored for sale ghee on 12-12-1962 when the food Inspector purchased the sample for analysis under the Prevention of Food adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act ). At the same time the Food Inspector also obtained from the petitioner receipt (Exhibit P. A.) for Rs. 3. 15 np. on account of the alleged cost of 450 grams of ghee taken by the Food Inspector for purposes of analysis. All the four specimen were got analysed from the Public Analyst. The disputed sample was forwarded by the Food Inspector along with Memo (Exhibit P. D) dated 12-12-1962 to the Public Analyst. No adulteration or defect was found with the two specimens of cream and the one specimen of milk. The disputed sample was tested as for desi ghee and was found to be highly adulterated with foreign refined ground-nut oil to the extent of 91. 7 per cent. The report of the Public Analyst is Exhibit P. E. Upon receipt of the Exhibit P. E. , the food Inspector submitted preliminary report (Exhibit P. F.) dated 28th December 1962 for prosecution. In that report it was stated that the sample of ghee had been found adulterated according to the report of the Public Analyst and that this being an offence under Section 7/16 of the Act, the petitioner may be prosecuted for the said offence. In the said preliminary report it was specifically stated that ghee weighing 46 kilograms (Including can) was seized under Form IV of Rule 10. The can from which the specimen of the disputed article was taken was sealed by the Food inspector and was left with the petitioner at the time of obtaining the sample on 12th December 1962.

(2.) IN exercise of the powers of the Municipal Corporation delegated to him under section 20 of the Act Shri Ganga Ram, Municipal Prosecutor, filed a complaint dated 18-2-1968 against the petitioner. In the said complaint It was specifically noted that the Food Inspector had at the time of obtaining the sample also seized the can from which the sample of ghee had been obtained, that it weighed, along with its contents, 46 Kilograms and that orders of the Court were also sought about the disposal of the said seized can and its contents. This was said to be the second offence committed by the petitioner under the Act as he was alleged to have already been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Act by the Court of Shri harish Chander, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi, on 16th June, 1962 and having been fined a sum of Rs. 125 on a plea of guilty in relation to the sample of milk which was stated to have been found adulterated.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was not selling any ghee nor was he storing any ghee for sale. According to him, the petitioner had kept groundnut oil for making some soap on the mezzanine floor of his premises and not in the shop. The can from which the disputed specimen was obtained and which can had been admittedly seized by the Food Inspector under Section 10 (4) of the Act was also produced by the petitioner in Court and it was found to carry an inscription of 'oil'. Further defence of the petitioner is that immediately after the raid the petitioner sent the written complaint (Exhibit D. W 1/c dated 12-12-1962 to the Health officer of the Municipal Corporation which was admittedly received by the office of the Corporation on 15th December, 1962. In that application the petitioner had stated that two specimen of cream, one of milk and one of oil kept for making soap had been obtained by the Food Inspector from the petitioner's shop on that date. viz. , 12-12-1962 and that the petitioner had subsequently come to know that the Food Inspector had described the specimen of oil as that of real ghee The petitioner also emphasized in the said application that he had shown to the Food inspector that it was written on the can from which the oil was taken that this oil was not meant for being consumed as Food. The petitioner further mentioned in the complaint that the number of phial in which the disputed specimen had been obtained was 624. In that application the petitioner prayed for investigation being made into his complaint as the petitioner was a poor man. The original complaint bears the seal of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the initials of the receiving official along with date. It is a matter of regret that the Corporation authorities did not appear to have taken any action on the said complaint and did not investigate into the allegations made by the petitioner in this behalf.