STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAMDAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 25th April, 1973 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 110/72. By his judgment aforesaid the Sessions Judge allowed the appeal filed by Ramdayal respondent against the judgment dated 10th November, 1972 passed by the Municipal Magistrate 1st Class Jodhpur convicting the said respondent of the offence under Section 7/6 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.) and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1200/ - and in the event of non payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The Sessions Judge, while setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the respondent, guashed the proceedings and discharged the respondent.

(2.) THE facts, briefly stated, are that the respondent was a vendor of 'Kulfi'. (milk ice cream) in a hand cart. The licence for sale of 'Kulfi' was issued in the name of his brother Mohanlal On 6th April, 1969, the respondent was selling kulfi near Stadium Cinema, Jodhpur, and Shri Chhattar Singh (P.W. 1), the Food Inspector purchased 600 gms. of milk icecream from the respondent for a sum of Rs. 3/ - after informing the respondent that he was purchasing it for the purpose of having it tested. This sample of' milk ice cream was divided into three equal parts and after adding necessary preservatives, the three parts were duly sealed in three separate bottles. One sealed bottle was handed over to the respondent and the other bottle containing the sample of milk ice cream was sent to the Public Analyst, Jodhpur vide Memo Ex. P -3. From the report (Ex. P -4) received from the Public Analyst, it appeared that the sample of milk ice cream was adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed stranded of purity and that the fat contents and the total solids were less than the prescribed quantify. After receiving the report of the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector Shri Chhatar Singh obtained the sanction of the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Jodhpur, for filing the complaint against the respondent and thereafter he filed the complaint against the respondent and one Mohanlal in the Court of Magistrate, 1st Class, Jodhpur and both the accused persons were tried for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act before the Municipal Magistrate, Jodhpur. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) THE Municipal Magistrate by his judgment dated 10th November, 1972 held that from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it was established that the Food Inspector Shri Chhattar Singh had purchased sample of milk ice cream from the respondent and that the said sample was divided into three parts and was put in three bottles which were duly sealed and that one of the sealed bottles were sent to the Public Analyst, Jodhpur for analysis and from the report (Ex. P -4) received from the Public Analyst, it was established that the sample of the milk ice cream contained in the bottle was adulterated. The Municipal Magistrate held that the respondent was selling milk ice cream and, therefore, he was guilty of the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act and he sentenced him to simple imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1200/ - and in the event of non payment of fine to undergo rigor us imprisonment for a period of three months. As regards accused Mohanlal the Municipal Magistrate held that his presence at the spot and his selling the ice cream was not established and it was also not established that the respondent was selling milk ice cream on his behalf and, therefore, accused Mohanlal was acquitted of the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act.