CHATRUMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Chatrumal was convicted by the Municipal' Magistrate, Ajmer under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter called as the Act, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. On appeal by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, the conviction of the petitioner was affirmed but the sentence was reduced to two month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ -, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner has now filed this revision application challenging his conviction and sentence.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner Chatrumal is a grocer having his shop at Hathi Bhata, Ajmer. He deals in vegetable ghee and oils. On 4th December, 1967 Food Inspector Yatindranath visited his shop and purchased 375 gms. of til oil from the petitioner for analysis purposes after giving notice Ex P. 1 in the prescribed form and making the payment of Rs. 1.40 as the price of the til oil. The sample of purchased was divided into three parts and each part was filled in a separate neat, and clean bottle. All the three bottles were duly corked, wrapped and labelled and sealed. One of such bottles was given to the petitioner, another was sent to the public analyst and the third one was retained by the Food Inspector. The Public Analyst S.D. Ahuja examined the sample of the til oil and found the sample to the adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity He also mentioned in the report that the til oil was adulterated due to low B.R. Value, low iodine value and high turbidity temperature (bellier test) On receipt of the public analyst's report, the Municipal Council, Ajmer, filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of the Municipal Magistrate, Ajmer. The accused pleaded not guilty. He stated that he Had sold pure til oil According to him, the person who purchased the sample was not the Food Inspector but his peon In his subsequent statement under Section 342 Cr. P.C. the petitioner stated that the peon first demanded ground nut oil from him which was supplied and filled in; three bottles. Later on, the Food Inspector came there and he asked the peon to take the sample of til oil. The bottles were then emptied and in the same bottles the sample of til oil was filled by the peon. On the prosecution side, the Food Inspector appeared in the witness -box and two more witnesses were examined. They are PW 2 Shyamsunder and PW 3 Narainsingh, the peon of the Food Inspector In defence, the petitioned examined DW 1 Bhugromal. Both the lower courts held that the defence taken up by the accused that the ground -nut oil was first filled, in the bottles taken later on, in the same bottles, til oil was filled in, was rejected as after -thought and false. This plea of defence was supported not only by DW1 Bhugrdmal but also by PW 2 Shyamsunder. Both the lower courts were of the view that DW 1 Bhugromal was a concocted Witness and P W 2 Shyamsunder was 'won over by the accused -petitioner. In the result, the trial court as well as the appellate court convicted the accused -petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 or the Act.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner next pointed out certain defects in the sealing of the sample bottles. It was pointed out that the sample was not properly packed and sealed in the manner provided in Rule 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, hereinafter called the Rules. At the trial, one of the bottle which was left with the Food Inspector was summoned and its seals were broken at the request of the petitioner. The court found that the outer mouth of the bottle was sealed and the bottle was labelled. The bottle was also found wrapped by a piece of thick paper. Rule 16 runs as follows: Rule 16. Manner of packing and sealing the samples: All samples of food sent for analysis shall be packed, fastened and sealed in the following manner namely: (a) The stopper shall first be securely fastened so as to prevent leakage of the contents in transit. (b) The bottle, jar or other container shall then be completely wrapped in fairly strong thick paper. The ends of paper shall be neatly folded in and affixed by means of gum or other adhesive. (c) The paper cover shall be further secured by means of strong twine or thread both above and cross the bottle, jar or other containers and the twine or thread shall then be fastened on the paper cover by means of shelling wax on which there shall be at least four distinct and clear impressions of the seal of the sender, of which one shall be at the top of the packet, one at the bottom and the other two on the body of the packet. The knots of the twine or thread shall be covered by means of sealing -wax bearing the impression of the seal of the sender. This rule deals with the manner of packing and sealing the samples, It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the requirements of Clause (c) of the said Rule were not fully complied with in as much as no seals were affixed at the bottom and on the body of the bottle and the paper cover was not secured by means of a strong twine or thread. It may be true that some of the requirements of Rule 16 were not complied with, but merely on that account the trial or the report of the Public Analyst can not be deemed to be invalid unless it was further shown that miscarriage of justice had been caused on account of the defects in the manner of packing and sealing the (sic) was not able to show how the accused was in any way prejudiced by reason of the non -compliance of the provisions of Rule 16. One of such bottles was sent to the Public Analyst and his report shows that the sample of til oil contained in the bottle was properly sealed and fastened and he found the seal intact and unbroken. He further noticed on comparison of the seal on the bottle and the specimen impression of the seal received separately by him that both the seals were indentical. If the bottles were properly sealed, there was no possibility of tampering with the sample oil. There is thus no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel that there was non -compliance of Rule 16 of the Rules.