RAMESHWAR DAS Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal revision by Rameshwar Das against his conviction under Section 4(1), U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act, Act 6 of 1912, and a fine of Rs. 150 or in default one month's E.I. The trial was summary and an application in revision was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Two legal grounds have been taken in revision. First, that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction, and second that the applicant could not be convicted when the goods were exposed to sale by somebody else. The enquiry began with a post-card addressed to the Municipal Board of Allahabad from Katni to the effect that the accused was sending a consignment of 350 tins of ghee to Allahabad which was unfit for human consumption. M. Barkatullah Khan, the sanitary inspector of the Municipality, took a sample from one of the 350 tins of ghee on the 2 May, 1934 which he apparently found at the godown of the firm of Shyam Narain Bhagwati Narain Arhatiyas to whom the accused firm had sent the consignment from Katni. A certificate was given on 23 May 1934 by the officiating Public Analyst to Government stating I am of opinion that the said sample contained a small proportion of fat or oil foreign to pure ghee.

(2.) On this a prosecution was started by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board of Allahabad against the accused Premsukh Das Rameshwar Das, ghee dealers of Katni, and the information form sets out that the charge is for selling and offering for sale in the Allahabad market ghee found adulterated." The Magistrate in his summary form entered before the accused that the accused admitted sending 350 tins of ghee to the store-keeper in Allahabad. I did not sell or expose for sale. Admitted that the sample taken was taken from these tins. Letters on the file are admitted.

(3.) The evidence of M. Barkatullah Khan is taken down as taking two samples one of which was found to be impure and the other taken later was found to be pure. Bhagwati Narain stated that he was an arhatia and kept the consignment received from the accused in his godown awaiting instructions for sale in the Allahabad market. The defence was that the accused did not sell or offer or expose for sale or manufacture for sale the consignment in question. The Magistrate states that he considered the accused guilty because the accused admittedly sent the consignment to Allahabad with a view to sell in the Allahabad market. The learned Sessions Judge in his order states that the consignment "was certainly exposed for sale at the agent's store-room at Allahabad." If this were correct there would be no difficulty in regard to the question of whether an offence was committed or not. The letters which were admitted by the accused include a letter from the accused dated 30 May 1934 in which they state that they have received the consignment from Rutlam in the Punjab and sent it from Katni to Allahabad to their arhatiyas Shyam Narain and Bhagwati Narain " to store for us and which (was) to be sold by us at the market rate." The letter went on to complain of their loss due to the locking up to the stock and the report by the Medical Officer of Health that the ghee was adulterated, and they were aggrieved by this order and that the tins may not have been cleaned properly and so caused the impurity. The (letter ends up with the request that the Chairman of the Municipal Board should decide our case at an early date and allow us the privileges of selling the tins of ghee except the two which were tested.