STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MANGILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from acquittal of the accused respondent Mangilal under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The accused was convicted by the Municipal Magistrate, Jodhpur and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 in default of payment of fine to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal by the accused the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Jodhpur acquitted him. Hence this appeal by the State.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on March 23, 1967 PW I Girish Narain Mathur, went to the shop of the accused, who used to sell 'Ghee' and after disclosing his identity he inspected the tins of 'Ghee' lying at his shop. Suspecting the 'Ghee' contained in one of the tins to be adulterated, he took a sample of the 'Ghee' from that tin, and after completing the necessary formalities he prepared the memo Ex. P. 1. He purchased 450 Grams 'Ghee' and paid Rs. 4.50.00 as is price to the accused. The sample of 'Ghee' taken by him was put into three bottles, which were duly sealed. The memo Ex. P. I as well as the labels on the bottles were signed by the accused as well as two Motbirs, viz. PW 2 Ganga Bishan and PW 3 Bhagirath. One of the samples was seat for analysis and on receipt of the report from the Public Analyst it was found that the 'Ghee' was adulterated inasmuch as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. The moisture contained in the sample was found to be 1.62 per cent, whereas it should have been .3 per cent. Consequently, the accused was prosecuted in the court of Municipal Magistrate, Jodhpur for offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) In support of the complaint three witnesses were examined, viz. PW 1 Girish Narain, PW 2 Ganga Bishan and PW 3 Bhagirath. The accused denied having committed the offence and pleaded that the tin of 'Ghee' from which the sample was taken did not belong to him but belonged to one Roop Chand Sharma (DW 1), who had brought it to his shop to get examined by the accused, whether the 'Ghee' was of standard quality and at that time the Food Inspector happened to come to the shop and took a sample of 'Ghee' from that tin. In support of his defence the accused examined DW 1 Roop Chand Sharma. The trial Court convicted the accused, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge on appeal came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove satisfactorily that the 'Ghee' in question belonged to the accused, inasmuch as the two motbir witnesses PW 2 Ganga Bishan and PW 3 Bhagirath had supported the defence version and the accused had also examined DW 1 Roop Chand Sharma in support of his defence.