CHAMPALAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, dated March 7, 1972, affirming the judgment dated November 4, 1969, of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Salumber, whereby he convicted the accused-petitioner under Section 7/16, of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, No. XXXVII of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 900/; in default of the payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution story, in a nut shell is that on February 16, 1968 PW. 1 Bhanwarlal, Food Inspector Inspected and checked the shop of the accused petitioner. Having disclosed his identity to the accused-petitioner the Inspector served him with a notice in Form No. VI (Ex. P1) and purchased 375 Grams of mustard oil for Rs. 187 paisa. The oil was divided into three parts. Each part was then filled in a bottle. All the three bottle were sealed in the presence of the petitioner. A memorandum containing the details of the action taken by the Food Inspector was prepared and has been marked Ex. P 2. It bears the signatures of Food Inspector PW. 1 Bhanwarlal, as those of the two attesting witnesses Devilal and Sohanlal. It also bears the signatures of the accused-petitioner Champa Lal Jain. One sample bottle was given to the accused-petitioner and the other was sent to the Public Analyst at Udaipur along with a specimen of the seal impression. The form containing the specimen seal is Ex. P3. The third bottle was retained by the Food Inspector. The sealed bottle was received by the Public Analyst on February 20, 1968. The Public Analyst received the bottle for analysis properly sealed and fastened and the seal was noticed by him to be in (sic), unbroken, and similar to the seal impression given on the memorandum. An endorsement to that effect has been made by the Public Analyst in Ex. P4. He analysed the contents of the bottle and declared the result as under:

(3.) In the opinion of the Public Analyst the sample if the oil was adulterated, as it did not conform to standard of purity prescribed by the Prevention or Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules'). The free fatty acid calculated as oleic was 4.15 %, the prescribed maximum for that oil being 3%. The Food Inspector filed a complaint in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate. Salumber, against the accused petitioner for his prosecution under Section 7/16 of the Act. The accused denied his complicity in the crime. The prosecution in support of their case examined two witnesses PW. 1 Bhanwarlal, the Food Inspector, and PW. 2 Sohanlal. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C. stated that the oil from which the sample was purchased by the Food Inspector was not kept on his shop for sale, it was for his personal use and he had brought it from his kitchen & had given the same to the Food Inspector. He examined two witnesses viz. DW. 1 Nihalchand and DW. 2 Champalal. The trial court, relying upon the testimony of PW. 1 Bhanwarlal, PW. 2 Sohanlal and Ex. P2 sought support of the prosecution case from the statement of DW. 2 Champalal, who in his cross-examination that that at times Champalal, accused, used to bring the goods from his kitchen and sell it to the customers. The trial court held that the mustard oil sold by the accused petitioner to the Food Inspector was adulterated and the same was kept for sale on his shop. The learned Magistrate found the accused petitioner guilty of the offence punished under Section 7/16 of the Act and sentenced him as mentioned above. The aggrieved accused took an appeal again t the above verdict in the Court of Sessions judge, Udaipur, who by his judgment dated March 7, 1972, upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court.