MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA SINGHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk, dated March 12, 1980; whereby he convicted the accused-respondent.

(2.) The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Food Inspector, Kutubuddin inspected the shop of the accused-respondent on Aug. 27, 1976 and found him selling ground-nut oil. He had earlier learnt that the said accused is selling oil which is giving foul smell. On his reaching on the shop he suspected the oil to be adulterated and hence obtained the samples. He divided them in three equal parts as contemplated by law after giving notice under Form No, 6 and thereafter completed the formalities. He sent the sample for analysis to Public Analyst who reported that the sample does not conform to the prescribed standard of purity, hence adulterated. The report is Ex.P.5. After obtaining the sanction the complaint was filed by Kutubuddin Food inspector in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk. It is pertinent to mention that accused-respondent told the Food Inspector Kutubuddin at the time of checking of the shop that he is selling the oil on the basis of ration-cards issued to the people and the bulk sale has been made to him by M/s Vinod Oil Mills, Niwai who are manufacturers. He also produced before the Food Inspector bills through which he had purchased the oil in order to prove the warranty. The Food Inspector then did not take a specific note of this and as mentioned above filed complaint against the accused-respondent. Later on a complaint was also filed against Shri Hemchand and others, the partners of M/s Vinod Oil Mills, Niwai. A separate sample was taken from a sealed tin. Thus instead of being consolidating the cases two separate complaints were filed in the same court in respect of one common inspection carried out. Separate trials proceeded and the accused-respondent's prosecution continued, though the sample obtained from the sealed tin was also found to be adulterated. The accused-respondent therefore, could not get any benefit of the warranty he had and had to face the trial till he was acquitted by the impugned judgment on the ground that proper sealing of the outer cover has not been proved. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while acquitting the accused-respondent relied on a judgment of this court reported in Mohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan 1980 RCC 62 . Municipal Committee aggrieved by the order of acquittal moved an application for grant of leave to appeal which leave was granted and consequently the present appeal. It would also be relevant to mention here that case against Hemchand also failed in the trial court against which also an application for leave to appeal was filed and having granted the same an appeal was preferred. That appeal had not been tagged with this case but the same has been decided finally by my brother Honourable I.S. Israni J. on 3-7-1989. The said judgment has been reported in 1989 RCC 450.

(3.) In the present appeal the learned counsel submits that there is mention of the seal of the container in Ex.P.3 which is memo prepared on the spot and there is mention also in Ex.P.5 which is a report from the State Central Public Health Laboratory that there were seals on the packet containing the bottles. It is submitted that this should be deemed to be a compliance of the provisions of Rule 4 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and also of Rule 7 (1).