ISHWAR DASS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 31st May, 1976, Food Inspector Megh Nath visited the shop of Ishwar Dass in Narwana. Two kilograms of "Gond Khanewala" was found for sale. Sample thereof was allegedly taken. In due course, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who found 5.04 per cent organic extraneous matter present. Considering the Gond to be adulterated, prosecution was launched against Ishwar Dass. The trial Magistrate recorded preliminary evidence consisting of the statement of the Food Inspector. By the impugned order he framed charge under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Ishwar Dass has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the charge and also the proceedings.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the parties referred to the following provisions of Section 2 of the Act:

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the State urged that the case fell within the ambit of Clause (a) of Sub -section (1) of Section 2 of the Act. A bare reading of this clause shows that it has been enacted to cover cases of fraud or misrepresentation. In such cases, the accused is assumed to have given an implied warranty to the effect that the article of food which is offered for sale is, in fact, what it purports to be. It would be of advantage to cite here Murlidhar Meghraj Loya etc. v. State of Maharashtra : AIR 1976 S.C 1929 wherein the Food Inspector demanded Khurasani oil from the accused and then accused sold it as such. Upon analysis of the sample of the oil, it, was found to be mixed with 30 per cent of groundnut oil. Their Lordships upheld the conviction under Clause (a). Another similar illustration is to be found in Public Prosecutor v. Kanurmrlapudi Ramalingaiah, (supra). In that case, the accused represented that he was selling groundnut oil, but the sample was found to consist of a mixture of 82 per cent of groundnut oil and 18 per cent of coconut oil. In these circumstances the case was held to be of adulteration under Clause (a) of Section 2(1) of the Act.