STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SUNDER DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMBA Lal Food Inspector, inspector, inspected the shop of Sunderdass respondent on September 18, 1975 at about 10 45 a.m. The shop of the respondent is situated in the main market of Sojat. It was found that on the shop of the respondent chillies powder was stored for sale. The Food Inspector purchased 450 grams of chillies powder from the respondent for Rs. 7.55 after giving a notice in Form VI to the respondent to have the same analysed by Public Analyst. This 450 grams of chillies powder was divided in three equal parts and filled in three clean and dry bottles. The bottles were wrapped around by paper and were sealed. One sample of chillies powder was given to the respondent. Out of the remaining two samples, one was sent to the Public Analyst, Jodhpur for chemical analysis. The Public Analyst found that the sample was adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standards of purity. After obtaining the permission of the Administrator, Municipal Board, Sojat, the Food Inspector filed a complaint against the respondent for offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (here in after, for short, the Act).

(2.) THE Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali (Camp: Sojat) found the respondent guilty under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months and to a fine of Rs.1000/ -. In default of payment of fine, further sentence of two months' rigorous imprisonment was also passed. It appears from the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate that three contentions were advanced on behalf of the respondent before him. The first contention was that the Food Inspector did not comply with the formalities required to be complied with by Rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (here in after, for short, the Rules). The Chief Judicial Magistrate held that no cross -examination on the point raised was made on behalf of the respondent with the Food Inspector and no defence evidence on this aspect was adduced. On the basis of evidence on record, the Chief Judicial Magistrate drew presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the formalities required by Rules 17 and 18 of the Rules were duly complied with. The next argument advanced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate was that the chillies powder did not fall within the category of spices and fell within the category of condiments and, therefore, the quantity of sample to be sent to the Public Analyst for analysis should have been 200 grams and not only 150 grams as had been sent by the Food Inspector. The Chief Judicial Magistrate relying upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kalid is Damodardas v. State of Gujarat 1976 FAC 117 held that chillies powder fell under the category of spices and, therefore, sample containing the quatity of 150 grams of chillies powder sent to the Public Analyst was not in accordance with Rule 22 of the Rules. The Chief Judicial Magistrate further observed that even if the chillies powder was a condiment it cannot be said that it does not fall within the category of spices. Last contention advanced on behalf of the respondent was that he had purchased the chillies powder from M/s. Rajendra and Company only few days before the Food Inspector took the sample and that he did not make any adulteration in the article of food. This fact was held not to have been established and it was held that the contention has no force in it when the Public Analyst found that the chillies powder did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity.

(3.) THE State of Rajasthan has, by leave, filed this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent.