STATE Vs. TEJ RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sirohi dated 10th of April, 1958 acquitting the respondent Tejraj of an offence under sec 16 read with sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act No. XXXVII of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE prosecution case may be briefly stated as follows: - THE respondent Tejraj carries on business as a commission agent at Sheoganj. He got some tins of ghee from Heeralal Pyarelal Agarwal for sale through his agency. On 5th of May, 1956, Dharam Singh, the Food Inspector went to his shop and made a test purchase of ghee worth As. -/8/-. THE ghee was taken in 3 bottles which were duly sealed. Out of these 3 bottles, one was given to the accused and the other was sent to the Public Analyst at Jodhpur for examination. THE Public Analyst at Jodhpur having reported that the ghee was adulterated and did not conform to the standard of genuine ghee, prescribed by the rules made under the Marwar Pure Food Act No. XVI of 1946, a complaint was filed against the respondent under sec. 16 of the Act. THE accused admitted that he carries on business as commission agent and that he had received 10 tins of ghee from Heeralal Pyarelal of Ratanpur along with other commodities. Out of 10 tins of ghee, he had sold 2 tins and at the relevant time, the remaining 8 tins were with" him. It was also admitted that a test purchase of ghee worth As.-/8/- was made from him by the Food Inspector. He, however, pleaded that the ghee had not been purchased by him and that he had received it sealed from Heeralal Pyarelal and that he had no knowledge that it was adulterated. In these circumstances, he did not plead guilty to the charge.

(3.) IN another Allahabad case, Municipal Board, Bareilly vs. Ramgopal (1) relied upon by the Magistrate, the facts were very peculiar. There, the accused did not sell himself ghee on behalf of the owner but allowed to the owner to sell it on the premises of his shop, the consideration for such license being a commission fixed by reference to a percentage of the sale price. IN these circumstances, it was held that he was not commission agent in the ordinary sense, although described as such, and that he could not be said to have taken part in the sale. He was treated as a mere licensor of a right to sell ghee on his premises. The learned Judges, however, made some observations regarding the necessity of establishing mens rea in case of persons "exposing goods for sale, which are, however, immaterial for the purposes of the present case.