KAILASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 26th March 1979, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by Which, he maintained the conviction of the petitioner for the offence Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, hereinafter 'the Act'), but reduced the sentence 1 year's SI to that of 6 months and maintained the sentence of fine as awarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was ordered to undergo the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the lower court.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated, the facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition, are that on 5th Jan. 1976, at about 1 P.M., Ramgopal Sharma, Food Inspector, visited the house of the petitioner and found the petitioner selling 'Paan -ka -Masala' which he suspected to be adulterated. After disclosing his identity, he purchased 600 gms. of the said 'Paan -ka -Masala' from the petitioner, for the purpose of analysis. He made payment to the petitioner for the said Masala. Then, he divided the Masala into three equal parts and filled them in dry and clean bottles. The bottles were properly sealed, and one of those bottles, was given to the petitioner. He, thereafter, seized about 830 packets of 'Pana -ka Masala' which were lying at the house of the petitioner, Kailash. After sealing those bottles, he entrusted them to the petitioner's custody. The sample was then sent to public analyst, for examination, who, later on, found the said sample to be adulterated due to presence of saccharin in it, the use of which was prohibited Under Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, hereinafter, the Rules'). After obtaining sanction for prosecution, the Food Inspector lodged complaint in the court of CJM, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The learned CJM, after completing the trial, found the accused -petitioner guilty of the offence Under Section 7/16 of the Act, and sentenced him to 1 year's SI and a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -. Against that judgment, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, who partly accepted it, and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner reduced the sentence of imprisonment as mentioned above.

(3.) MR . Pareek, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that use of saccharin in 'Paan -ka -Masala' was not permissible. The public analyst in his opinion, said that the 'Paan -ka -Masala' had saccharin in it, and as use of saccharin was prohibited under Rule 47 of the Rules, in Paan -ka -Masala, the sample was adulterated as it contained saccharin. He argued that the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in convicting the petitioner.