EMPEROR Vs. RAM GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Fatehpur under the following circumstances: Two persons, Darshan Singh and Ramgopal, were tried under Section 4, U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act 6 of 1912, by a Magistrate. The accused Ram Gopal is a commission agent who has a shop and he stated: On 4 October 19S5 Darshan came to my shop and was sitting there and in the meantime Sanitary Inspector came there and purchased samples. He kept it in three bottles and duly sealed them. I did not expose that ghee for sale and I do not know if that ghee was pure or impure.

(2.) On the evidence the Magistrate found that the ghee was impure in accordance with a sample analysed by the Public Analyst as it had a small proportion of fat or oil foreign to pure ghee. He convicted both the accused and the present reference is in regard to the conviction of Ram Gopal. The Magistrate held that Ram Gopal was a commission agent for some ghee and people bring ghee to his shop and sell through him and Ram Gopal charges commission from them; that it was proved that Darshan Singh brought the ghee in question and was sitting at the shop of Ram Gopal and that Darshan Singh actually sold the ghee to the sanitary inspector: For the purpose of Section 4(1), U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act, the ghee was certainly exposed for sale by Ram Gopal Bania when he allowed Darshan Singh to sit on his shop and to sell it to the Sanitary Inspector. It is immaterial whether Ram Gopal took any commission or not and himself did not take any active part in selling ghee in question to the Sanitary Inspector. Darshan Singh admits that the ghee belonged to him and he sold it to the Sanitary Inspector. He has not been able to prove that the ghee was pure.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge considered that it was Darshan Singh from whom the sanitary inspector purchased the sample of ghee and that Ram Gopal should not be convicted because Darshan Singh did the selling and was present. Now it is difficult to adopt the view of the learned Judge for several reasons. In the first place Section 4(1), U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act penalises the selling or offering or exposing for sale, etc. Although the actual selling may have been done by Darshan Singh it appears to me that the exposing for sale was done by Ram Gopal because the shop belonged to Ram Gopal and goods could not have been exposed for sale in that shop without his consent. Darshan Singh is apparently a villager and he has no connexion with the shop of Ram Gopal and it was Ram Gopal who allowed the ghee to be exposed for sale at his shop and who allowed it to be sold at his shop. The next point is that Section 40, I. P. G., in para. 2, provides that the word "offence" in Section 109 denotes a thing punishable under any special or local law as well as a thing punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The law of abetment therefore will apply to Section 4, Prevention of Adulteration Act. As there is no express provision for the abetment of this offence the penalty therefore is the same as the penalty for the offence. Thirdly, in Section 107, I.P.C., "abetment" is constituted by intentional aiding of any act or illegal omission to do a thing.