KHUSHI RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case was convicted and sentenced for the offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The allegations were that he sold the turmeric powder which was found to be adulterated. On April 26, 1990, the Food Inspector visited the shop of the petitioner and seized the turmeric powder after following the usual procedure under the Act. Sample was sent to the Public Analyst who opined that the turmeric powder contained ash insoluble contents 2.72% against the maximum prescribed standards of 1.5%. Besides that it contained rice starch as an admixture. Further, the grit contents were 1.26%. Thus, the sample did not conform with the required standard.

(2.) THE papers further indicate that the other sample of the same turmeric powder which was seized by the Food Inspector, was sent to the Central Food Laboratory, who found that ash insoluble contents were 2.68% by weight as against the maximum specified limit of 1.5% by weight. The Central Food Laboratory further found that it contained artificial unpermitted oil disoluable colouring matter and extraneous matter which was identified as rice bran. The trial Court found the petitioner guilty under the said Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court. Hence the petitioner has now preferred this revision against that order.

(3.) IN view of the various rulings to which the learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference, and which I will discuss at a later stage, it appears necessary to consider the provisions of the Act to ascertain in which cases, the Court is in a position to take into consideration the various factors for showing leniency and in that case, to what extent leniency can be shown. These offence under the Act are penalties as per Section 16. Section 16 is divided in various clauses and sub-clauses. In the present case, clause (i) of sub-section 1 of Section 16 would be applicable. It provides punishment in respect of adulteration of food article as indicated in sub- clause (m) of clause (ia) of Section 2. It pertains to adulteration of a food article of which the quality or purity falls below the prescribed standard by reason of such adulteration which does not render it injurious to health. It may be recalled that one of the arguments was that leniency be shown because the alleged adulteration was not injurious to health. In that context, it may be mentioned that the penalising portion of Section 16 provides that in such cases also, the imprisonment shall not be less than six months which may extend to three years. In addition to that, the accused has to be penalised with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees. Briefly stated therefore, even in this case, the imprisonment cannot be less than the one mentioned above.