MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OM Parkash, Respondent, a Ghee dealer of Amritsar, was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by Shri Sher Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Amritsar, on 31st of July, 1965, for having displayed for sale adulterated Ghee on 20th of June, 1964, at his business premises known as Amrit Dairy and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a year and a fine of Rs. 1,500, the sentence in default of payment of fine being rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was acquitted in appeal by Shri H.K. Mehta, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, against whose judgment dated 4th of September, 1965, the present appeal has been filed by the Municipal Committee, Amritsar, to whom leave for the purpose was granted by this Court under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE facts of the case may briefly be stated thus. On 20th of June, 1964, at 10.30 a.m., Dr. Sujan Singh Sodhi, Assistant Medical Officer of Health and Food Inspector, Municipal Committee, Amritsar (P.W. 1), organised a raid party of which the other members were Shri Tara Singh Ghuman, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar (P.W. 2), Shri Krishan Kumar, Sanitary Inspector, Shri Kartar Singh and Shri Shori Lal. The Amrit Dairy was raided by this party with whom were associated Virsa Singh (D.W. 1) and Santokh Singh (D.W. 2). Dr. Sujan Singh Sodhi, P.W. informed the Respondent, who was present at the premises, that the former was a Food Inspector who wanted to take a sample of the Ghee displayed by the Respondent for analysis. Dr. Sodhi then purchased 450 grams of the said Ghee on payment of Rs. 3.60 for which receipt Exhibit P.B. attested by Virsa Singh and Santokh Singh, D.Ws., was issued. The Ghee thus purchased was divided into three equal parts, each one of which was put into a separate phial. All the three phials were duly labelled, stoppered and sealed. One of the phials was handed over to the Respondent against receipt Exhibit P.C. another was sent to the Public Analyst and the third was retained by Dr. Sodhi. After the analysis of the sample sent to him, the Public Analyst issued his report (P.F.). The report stated the result of the analysis to be as follows:

(3.) WHEN the charge was read over and explained to the Respondent before the commencement of the trial, he admitted that the sample in question was taken from him as alleged by the prosecution. He took the stand, however, that utensil (Batti) brought from outside by the peon of Dr. Sodhi was used in transferring the sample from the Ghee can to the bottles, that the Ghee was heated in the Batti before being so transferred and that the said bottles were unclean.