BABULAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS shall be presently shown that the written consent Ex. P. 8 u/s 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short P. F. Act)cannot be said to be in accordance with law and, therefore, no cognizance of the offence u/s 7/16 of the P. F. Act could have taken by the learned court and the revision petition, therefore, on such point only deserves to be allowed.

(2.) SHRI Hari Dutt Sharma was the Food Inspector on 23rd October 1978. The accused petitioners has a kirana shop near Jamamaszid Bharatpur and the Food Inspector went to the shop of the accused petitioner and purchased 'heeng' for the purpose of analysis as he suspected the same to be aduherated. The sample was purchased and it was devided into three equal parts and each part was filled in three clean dry phials and each sample was corcked, wrapped and sealed. One sample was given by hand by the Food Inspector to the Chief Public Analyst and it reached in his office on 24th October J978. The seal fixed on the container of the sample tallied with specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector and the sample was in a condition fit for analysis. The Chief Public Analyst found that the sample of 'heeng' was adulterated as it does not conform to the prescribed standard of purety. The Food Inspector after taking the written consent of the local authorities filed a complaint. During the trial of the case, the defence of the accused petitioner was that the sample of 'heeng' was taken from his possession but it was only meant for killing insects and was not meant for human consumption. The accused petitioner also come out with a plea that he was denied of his right for second analysis of the second sample by the Director, Central Food Laboratory. The accused petitioner did not examine any witness in defence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as aforesaid and the appeal too was dismissed.