MURARI LAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Muzaffarnagar recommending that the conviction and sentence passed upon two persons Murari Lal and Meher Chand for having committed an offence under Section 17, U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act (Act 6 of 1912) should be set aside. The material facts of the case can briefly be stated as follows: Meher Chand is the munim and general manager of a firm styled Sarup Lal Mutsuddi Lal which carries on business at Muzaffarnagar. The firm is owned by Murari Lal who has a son named Bul Chand who was also prosecuted for the same offence but was acquitted by the learned trying Magistrate. It appears that Meher Chand obtained a licence for selling ghee on behalf of the firm. It is not contested that the licence which he so obtained related to a shop No. 94 and had nothing to do with any other building or shop No. 93. On 24 May 1938 the Health Officer of the Muzaffarnagar Municipal Board visited shop No. 94 and asked Meher Chand to let him inspect shop No. 93 which he suspected was being used for storing ghee. Meher Chand said that he did not have the key of shop No. 93 and went away to inform his master Murari Lal. After some time Meher Chand returned with Bul Chand, the son of Murari Lal, who had a bunch of keys with him. Bul Chand told the Health Officer that shop No. 93 was not being used as a godown for storing ghee and the Health Officer hadtherefore no right to inspect it. Being thus denied access to shop No. 93, the Health Officer left the place and on 27 May 1938 a Sanitary Inspector named D.H. Jafri, who accompanied the Health Officer, made a written complaint to the Sub-divisional Magistrate charging Bul Chand with an offence under Section 17, U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act for having committed a breach of Rule 8 framed under Section 16 of the Act. Now Section 16 runs as follows: The Local Government may by Notification prescribe that no person shall sell or offer or expose for sale or manufacture or store for sale any specific article of food or drug except under a licence containing such conditions and given by such authority as the Government may by the said Notification prescribe.

(2.) In the exercise of this power the Local Government has issued a Notification No. 912-XVI (P.H.)-332-1927. By this notification the Local Government has framed certain rules which are called "Butter, Ghee and Fat Licencing Rules, 1930." Rule 8 of these rules runs as follows: A licence-holder shall render all possible facilities for the inspection of his shops, godowns or any other place used for storage, manufacture or sale of articles for which he holds a licence and also for the taking of samples for analysis at all reasonable times to the Medical Officer of Health or to any other officer authorized by a local authority or Government for the purpose.

(3.) It has been stated above that Bul Chand was the only person charged under Section 17, U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act in the complaint made by D.H. Jafri on 27 May 1938, but it appears that on 2 July, 1938 the Health Officer of the Muzaffarnagar Municipal Board addressed a letter to the Sub-divisional Magistrate suggesting that Murari Lal and Meher Chand were equally guilty under Section 17 and praying that they should also be summoned to stand their trial for that offence. Acting upon this letter the learned trying Magistrate summoned these two persons with the result that they were tried jointly with Bul Chand. In the end however the learned trying Magistrate acquitted Bul Chand but found Murari Lal and Meher Chand guilty. Meher Chand and Murari Lal went up in revision to the learned Sessions Judge of Muzaffarnagar who has made this reference with the recommendation that their conviction and sentence should be set aside.