MANOHAR LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for revision by Manohar Lal. It arises out of judgment of Shri R.L. Anand, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Phagwara, dated October 28, 1967, convicting the Petitioner under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1967, hereinafter called the Act, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000.00 or in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. On appeal, Shri Kartar Singh, Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, by his judgment, dated November 16, 1967, disallowed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the Petitioner.

(2.) THE Petitioner runs a karyana shop in village Narur in the district of Kapurthala. On October 24, 1966, Dr. R.P. Gulati, Food Inspector along with Kishan Singh and Puran Chand visited! the shop of the Petitioner. The Petitioner had exposed in his shop for sale four kilograms of turmeric powder. The Petitioner was served with notice Exhibit P.A. showing the intention of the Food Inspector to purchase turmeric powder for analysis, under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under. The Petitioner signed that notice in token of its service. The Petitioner noted on Exhibit P.A. that the turmeric powder was meant for external application to wounds. He sold 450 grams of turmeric powder for 72 paise and signed receipt Exhibit P.B. in token of receipt of the price of the powder sold. The Food Inspector divided into three lots the turmeric powder purchased and separately labelled and sealed the same into three bottles. Recovery memo pertaining to the sample taken from the shop of the Petitioner is Exhibit P.C. These documents are signed by the Food Inspector and also by Kishan Singh and Puran Chand as attesting witnesses. Out of the three sample bottles prepared, one was given to the Petitioner, one was retained by the Food Inspector and the third was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. By his report Exhibit P.D., the Public Analyst found that the sample was highly infested with insects and was an adulterated article. Complaint was filed by the Food Inspector against the Petitioner for offence under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the Act. The prosecution produced Dr. R.P. Gulati, P.W. 1, Kishan Singh, P.W. 2 and Puran Chand, P.W. 3, in support of the recovery of turmeric powder from the shop of the Petitioner. The recovery has been proved by Dr. R.P. Gulati, P.W. The fact of the recovery of turmeric powder has also been admitted by the Petitioner. He has, however, contended that the turmeric powder was exposed in his shop for sale not for human consumption as an article of food but was meant for use for external application to wounds. Thus, there is no controversy about the factum of recovery of turmeric powder from the shop of the Petitioner. There is no doubt that Kishan Singh and Puran Chand P.Ws. did not support the prosecution case of the recovery of the turmeric powder having been made from the shop of the Petitioner. They alleged that they ar* rived after the recovery had been made and they appended their signatures to the above referred to documents, which had been prepared by Dr. R.P. Gulati, P.W., prior to their arrival at the shop. This, failure on the part of these two witnesses to support the case of prosecution pertaining to the recovery of turmeric powder from the shop is inconsequential. The recovery having been admitted by the Petitioner himself, their evidence in no way adversely affects the factum of recovery of the turmeric powder. On the basis of these facts, the trial Court took the view that as turmeric powder ordinarily enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of human food and was 'food' within the meaning of the term defined in Section 2(v) of the Act, the stand taken by the Petitioner could not take the article out of the scope of definition of that term. The Petitioner in defence led the evidence of Mehar Chand, D.W. I and Balam Singh, D.W. 2, to show that the Petitioner was selling turmeric powder for application to wounds. The evidence of both these witnesses is to the effect that when they arrived, sample of the turmeric powder had already been taken. Balam Singh, D.W. 2 stated that the Petitioner does not sell turmeric powder at all. Thus, Balam Singh, D.W., who arrived along with Mehar Chand, D.W., not only cuts the latter but goes counter to the stand taken by the Petitioner, namely, that he sells the turmeric powder not for human consumption but for treatment of wounds. Mehar Chand, D.W., however, supports the defence of the Petitioner that at the time the turmeric powder was recovered, he told the Food Inspector that he sold turmeric for application to wounds. 4. The trial Court negatived the contention of the defence, believed the prosecution evidence and convicted and sentenced the Petitioner as detailed above.