LAL CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On April 26, 1980 PW-1 Ranjeet Singh, the then Food Inspector Niwai Distt. Tonk (Raj) noticed Lal Chand petitioner offering, besides other foodstuffs. chillies powder for sale at his shop at Niwai. After informing the petitioner of his intention to get the chillies powder examined by Public Analyst for proof of adulteration, if any, therein the Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of chillies powder for Rs. 6/- only, prepared three samples therewith, sent one of them to the Public Analyst for analysis and deposited the remaining two with the Local (Health) Authority.

(2.) On analysis the Public Analyst reported that the sample of chillies powder was adulterated as the same did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. The sample powder contained non-permitted coaltar Die of "Red Shade" as well. The Food Inspector there upon obtained the requisite written consent of the Local (Health) Authority, Tonk and filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk. The learned Magistrate tried the petitioner on charge u/S. 7d of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act) and found him guilty thereof. He accordingly convicted the appellant therefor and sentenced him u/S. 16(1) of the Act to one year Rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence having been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, the petitioner has approached this Court in revision u/S. 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr. P.C.).

(3.) Mr. Inder Raj Saini, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Court, below did not correctly appreciate the evidence on record and, therefor, the findings recorded by them regarding the quilt of the petitioner were not correct. In this behalf Mr. Saini pointed out that the petitioner simply ran a hotel at the relevant time and he was not a dealer in chillies powder and therefore, sale of chillies powder by him to the Food Inspector did not amount to sale for the purposes of the Act. I find no force in this argument.