KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted under Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1944, for selling dhania whole (coriander) the sample of which later was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst as it contained two rat droppings and one dead weevil.

(2.) THE whole submission of Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the article in question could not be adulterated in view of proviso to clause (m) of section 2(ia) of the Act. To be precise, his case is that the extraneous matter found in the sample of dhania whole was on account of natural causes and beyond the control of human agency. To, contend this, he relies on the statement of the Food Inspector wherein be admitted that dhania is grown in fields and rats too live there, The learned counsel infers from this that while gathering the crop it is possible that dropping may also be collected along with The produce. That may be so, but to take advantage of the exception referred to above it is for the accused to show that the extraneous matter found in any primary food it is not disputed that dhania whole is primary food was not only due to natural causes alone but was also beyond the control of human agency (Emphasis supplied), From a reading of this proviso it is manifest that in order to seek the protection of this proviso, the accused has to prove two matters, i.e., the presence of the extraneous trotter in the primary food was (i) solely due to natural causes, and (ii) beyond the control of human agency. In the instant case, the learned counsel may Well be justified in contending that the first part of this proviso, as referred to above stands satisfied yet the second part is neither proved nor probablised. It is not the case of the petitioner at all that he could not clean the dhania whole, i.e., the article sold to the Food Inspector or that it was beyond his control or impossible for him to clean the same before putting. It to sale. I am, therefore, satisfied that the run on protection of this proviso is not available to the petitioner. In view of that I find no merit in this petition and thus the same is dismissed.