GORI SHANKER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal revision directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated November 23, 1971, whereby he confirmed the sentence of Gori Shanker, the applicant, to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- u/s. 7/16 of the preventions of Food Adulteration Act which was awarded to him by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raisinghnagar for selling adulterated Dhania (coriander ). Veersingh Chowdhari, Food Inspector visited the shop of the applicant on the morning of August 5, 1967 at Anupgarh and purchased 375 grams of powdered Dhania on payment of Rs. 1. 50p. He put the samples in three phialsin equal quantity and sealed them in the presence of the Motbirs and gave one phial to the accused along with Form No. 6 and sent another to the Chemical Analyst, Jaipur, who found the sample to be adulterated with foreign matter as per his report Ex. P/5. Before the learned Magistrate the prosecution examined Sohanlal Motbir (PW/l) and Food Inspector Veersingh (PW/2 ). The accused admitted having sold the sample but he denied any adulteration by him and added that he sold it as he had purchased from Vijayuagar. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate found that the sale of Dhania stood proved and that it was adulterated with foreign matter and, therefore, he convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 208/ -. An appeal was taken before the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar and it was urged that sec. 10 sub-sec. (7) had not been followed in this case; and that the time and the date of the examination of the sample have not been mentioned in the report of the Public Analyat and as such the appellant was entitled to acquittal. The learned Sessions Judge rejected both these contentions and affirmed the sentence as indicated above

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has taken before me several grounds assailing the applicant's conviction. The first ground urged by him is that Veer Singh is not a Food Inspector as required by the law and taking sample by him and subsequent proceedings are, therefore, vitiated. Sec. 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called "the Act") lays down that the Central Government or the State Government, may by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit, having the prescribed qualifications to be Food Inspectors for such local areas as may be assigned to them by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be Rule 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called "the Rules") prescribes the qualifications. The learned Deputy Government Advocate urged that this point was not raised before the two courts and it relates to a question of fact and it should not be permitted to be agitated before this Court in the revisional jurisdiction. I have gone through the evidence of Veer Singh. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that on 5-8-67 he was appointed as Food Inspector in Anupgarh and he has powers under the Act upto 33th March, '70. In cross-examination he has stated that had taken charge from Mr. J. N. Mathur as Food Inspector of Vijaynagar area. The applicant neither in his own statement nor in his cross-examination challenged the statement made on oath by Veer Singh notwithstanding the fact that he had three opportunities to cross-examine him on 7-10-68,3-2-69 and 25-3-69. There is no reason to disbelieve the Food Inspector's statement made on oath. It was believed by the trial court and was never challenged even before the first appellate court. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is rejected.

(3.) I must mention one circumstance that I have noticed in this case. The learned Magistrate imposed a fine of Rs. 200/- when sec. 16 (l) (f) categorically prescribes "and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees". The learned Magistrate was, therefore clearly in error. The case relates to the year 1967 and the applicant is said to be a small shopkeeper therefore I did not consider it expedient to issue a notice for enhancement.