HEM RAJ Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a complaint filed by, the Food Inspector the petitioner was tried under Sec. 16(t)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') by the Judicial Magistrate Mandi. The learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the aforesaid offence and convicted him accordingly. For this conviction the petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00. He preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner now invokes the revisional jurisdiction of this court for getting his conviction and sentence quashed.

(2.) The facts of this case show that a sample of Chhuharas weighing 600 grams was taken from the petitioner by the Food Inspector. The sample was of course taken and dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst opined :

(3.) The petitioner had raised various contentions in the courts below which did not find favour either with the trial court or with the appellate court. Shri Jamalta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has not raised those contentions before me in these proceedings. He has raised only one contention. He has drawn my attention to the report of the public Analyst which is found at Ex. P.E. This report shows that the weight of the sample which was received by the Public Analyst for analysis from the Food Inspector was 150 grams as recorded in this report The weight of the sample which was sent by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst was on the other hand 200 grams. This fact is admitted by the Food Inspector who claims to have purchased 600 grams of Chhuharas from the petitioner against payment of Rs. 5.40 vide receipt Ex. P.B. The same weight 600 grams finds mentioned in the receipt Ex. P.B. as well, This sample, according to the Food Inspector, had been divided into three equal parts out of which one was sent to the Public Analyst The contention, therefore, is that whereas the Food Inspector had on 15-11-1975 the day on which sample was purchased, sent 200 grams of Chhuharas to the Public Analyst, the Public Analyst on 19-12-1975 when the sample was analysed found its weight as 150 grams. It is obvious from this difference in the weight of the sample as recorded on 15-11-1975 and as recorded on 19-12-1975 that the sample lost 50 grams in its weight. Now the only explanation for this loss can be the damage caused to the sample by the living insects found therein. There is thus every justification to conclude that the sample was damaged and reduced in weight by 25% during the period 15-11-1975 when the sample-was purchased and 19-12-1975 when it was analysed. This report of the Public Analyst would not thus suggest that the sample when it was purchased was damaged with insects and adulterated on that account. On the other hand the only reasonable inference is that the sample was damaged only after it was purchased by the Food Inspector which inference alone would explain the loss in its weight from 200 grams to 150 grams. find every substance in this contention of the learned counsel. In the absence of any other explanation for the loss in the weight of the sample which is not a marginal loss but a loss to the extent of 25% the possibility cannot be ruled out that this loss occurred on account of the damage caused by insects which damage, therefore, must have been caused during the period 15-11 -1975 to 19-12-1975. The report of the Public Analyst reflects the analysis of the sample a-- on 19-12 1975 the date on which it was analysed and not on 15-11-1^75 the date on which it was purchased from the petitioner. The petitioner was responsible only if the sample was found adulterated on the day when it was purchased and not if it got adulterated thereafter. In any case, it is a fit case in which the petitioner should be given the benefit of doubt.