STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. TEJMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGAINST the judgment of acquittal dated July 14, 1977 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal for securing the conviction of the accused-respondent under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (No. XXXVII of 1954) (for short 'the Act' hereafter ).

(2.) THE Food Inspector, Municipal Area, Bhilwara filed a complaint on August 31, 1970 against the accused under Section 16 (1) of the Act. According to the prosecution, the accused was carrying on his business in a shop situate inside Sarkari Darwaja, Sadar Bazar, Bhilwara under the name and style of swastik Masala Bhandar. On June 8, 1970, at 5 p. m. , the Food Inspector Sardarsingh went there and purchased 450 grams chillies powder from the accused at a price of Rs. 2. 70. The accused was duly informed vide Ex. P1 (Form No. VI) that the chillies powder was being purchased for the purpose of getting it analysed. The chillies powder, purchased from the accused was divided into three equal parts putting each into three separate bottles, which were duly corked and sealed in the presence of Motbir, P. W. 2, Govindram vide Panchanama Ex. P3. One of the bottles was given to the accused and one was sent to the Public Analyst along with the letter Ex. B4 (Form No. VII) dated June 9, 1970 for analysis. The Public Analyst, Rajasthan, Jaipur in his report Ex. P. 5 dated July 2/4, 1970, opined that the sample so taken from the accused was adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. The result of the analysis, as mentioned in the report, was as under:<FRM>JUDGEMENT_70_TLRAJ0_1979Html1.htm</FRM> As the chillies powder was found to be adulterated, the complaint (Ex. (1) was filed after obtaining sanction for prosecution under Section 20 of the Act, from the Administrater Municipal Council, Bhilwara dated August 31, 1970. On March 30, 1971, Sardarsingh, Food Inspector was examined and after hearing arguments, charge under Section 7/16 of the Act was framed by the First Class Magistrate, Bhilwara. The accused denied to have committed any offence and claimed trial. He desired for further cross-examination of Sardarsingh, Food Inspector, which was allowed. The prosecution examined Govindram P. W. 2 to prove Ex. P1, Ex. P2 and Ex. P3. The statement of accused was recorded. In defence the accused examined D. W. 1 Saligram. After concluding the trial and hearing arguments, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the chillies powder, the sample of which was taken by Sardarsingh P. W. 1, Food Inspector, did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity and it was adulterated. He, however, was of the opinion that the chillies powder was a 'condiment', that requisite quantity of 200 grams of chillies powder was not sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and so there was non-compliance of Rule 22 of the Prevention of Adulteration Rules (hereafter 'the Rules') which deals with quantity of sample to be sent to the Public Analyst. Relying on the decision reported in Rajaldas G. Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra , he was of the opinion that non-compliance of Rule 22 with respect to the quantity to be supplied caused not only infraction of the provisions but also injustice to the accused. He, therefore acquitted the accused under Section 7/16 of the Act by his order dated July 14, 1977. The State of Rajasthan has, therefore, come up in appeal against the aforesaid judgment.

(3.) THE appeal remained part heard on October 28, 1978. Mr. N. M. Lodha, learned Counsel for the State and Mr. J. M. Bhandari, learned Counsel for the accused-respondent concluded their arguments on November 11, 1978, in which it was stated that he had started Kirana business in a shop in the name and style of Swastik Masala Bhandar in Bhilwara in January, 1970 and closed it in June, 1971, and he is very old and has completed 70 years of age. He has, inter alia, stated that he is a retired clerk. At the request of Mr. D. S. Shishodia, Public Prosecutor and Mr. J. M. Bhandari, learned Counsel for the accused-respondent and in view of Section 20-AA, inserted in the Act by Act No. XXXIV of 1976, with effect from April 1, 1976, additional arguments were heard.