JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 29.11.76 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu confirming the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu had found the accused-petitioner guilty under section 7/16 of the Act and had sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 or in default to suffer one months simple imprisonment more. The acts of this case out of which this revision arises are these.

(2.) The accused-petitioner was a grain dealer in the town of Jhunjhunu. In the month of Sept., 1972, Dhanraj (PW2), Food Inspector, Jhunjhunu visited the premises of the accused-petitioner and found that there was pure ghee 4 Kg. in a tin. The Food Inspector purchased 450 Grams Ghee for the purpose of analysis and paid its price amounting to Rs. 6-75 p. The ghee was divided into three parts and each f part was separately wrapped, corked and sealed. One sample was delivered to the accused and the other was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Anahit on analysis found vide his report (Ex.P.5) that the sample did not conform to the prescribed standards of purity and was adulterated with fellow. After obtaining the sanction for the prosecution of the accused under S. 20 of the Act, a complaint was filed by the Food Inspector. During the examination under S. 313 Cr. P. C., the accused came out with the plan that the ghee was not meant for sale but had been purchased by him for home consumption. The accused examined witnesses in defence in support of this plea, but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after trial convicted and sentenced the accused, as aforesaid.

(3.) The main submission of the learned Advocate for the accused petitioner is that the accused was not a dealer and the ghee was only purchased by him for home consumption. Therefore, the Food Inspector, Shri Dhanraj (PW2), was not authorised under S. 10 of the Act to take a sample for analysis. Therefore, the conviction of the accused-petitioner is not in accordance with law.