OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE THROUGH MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu, dated 9 6 1972 whereby he dismissed the appeal against the conviction and sentences imposed upon the petitioners by the learned special Municipal Mobile Magistrate Jammu on 26 -4 -71 holding the petitioners guilty of offence u/s 16 read with section 7 of the J&K Prevention of Food Adulteration Act sentencing each one of them to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ -

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, the petitioner Mangaram runs a grocers shop at City Chowk, Jammu and among other things also deals in the sale of Dessi Ghee. Om Prakash petitioner is his employee at the said shop On 21. 10. 1969, Food Inspector Shri Girdhari Lal purchased 375 grams of Dessi Ghee from Om prakash in presence of witnesses for the purpose of analysis. One sample was sent to the public Analyst for analysis who gave his results as under: - Moisture 3.0 percent B.R. reading at 40C 44.0 Free fatty acid 1.55 percent Reichert value 34.2 According to the opinion of the public Analyst, the sample of the ghee was adulterated. The petitioner were thereupon tried and convicted as noticed above.

(3.) IN the revision petition before me, Mr. Bhalgotra, the learned counsel for the petitioners has raised there contensions. In the first place it has been submitted that there has been non compliance with the provisions of Rule 14 of the J&K Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1963 here in after referred to as "the Rules" and that vitiates the trial. Then it was contended by him, that it has been established that Manga Ram was the partner of the firm and was also in charge of the working of the firm and in the absence of any such evidence, the conviction of Manga Ram petitioner was not sustainable. The third argument raised was that since the excess of moisture is possible in the process of manufacturing and there as no charge that the petitioners were manufactures of the ghee, their convictions are bad. This third argument was raised faintly and as a matter of fact was not pressed during the course of submissions.