Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1968 DIGILAW 351 (ALL)

Ramji Das v. State of U. P.

1968-09-18

D.D.SETH

body1968
JUDGMENT D.D. Seth, J. - The facts of this application in revision are that on 6.8.1966 in the morning at about 8 o'clock Sri Irtiqa Fazli who was the Food Inspector posted in Meerut in that year went to the shop of the applicant and took sample of desi butter which was kept for sale in the shop. According to the statement made by the Food Inspector he had disclosed his identity to the applicant before taking the sample of butter and purchased 240 grams of butter for Rs. 3/-. The Food Inspector then filled the sample of butter taken by him in three empty bottles and duly sealed them in the presence of the applicant and some witnesses. He gave one bottle of the sample along with a copy of the notice Ex. Ka. 1 to the applicant and got it singed by him and the witnesses. The Food Inspector also obtained a receipt for the payment of Rs. 3/- made by him to the applicant. He sent one of the bottles to the Public Analyst, Lucknow and deposited the third bottle with the Medical Officer of Health, Meerut. The Public Analyst reported that the sample of butter sent to him was adulterated and was not of prescribed standard. Thereupon, the Food Inspector reported the matter to the Medical Officer of Health, Municipal Board, Meerut who ordered a complaint to be filed for the prosecution of the applicant. Accordingly the applicant was sent up for trial for offences under section 7 read with Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The applicant in his statement made before the trial court admitted the facts as alleged by the Food Inspector and in the complaint filed with the permission of the Medical Officer of Health, Municipal Board, Meerut, but pleaded that the butter sold by him carried a lable which clearly mentioned that the butter contained not more than 30 per cent of moisture, not less than 66 per cent of ghee and 4 per cent of kasin. The applicant's case further was that this lable was not sent to the Public Analyst and, therefor, the Public Analyst examined the sample without any reference to the lable which admittedly was contained on the packets of the butter which was exposed for sale by the applicant on 5.8.1966. 3. The applicant's case further was that this lable was not sent to the Public Analyst and, therefor, the Public Analyst examined the sample without any reference to the lable which admittedly was contained on the packets of the butter which was exposed for sale by the applicant on 5.8.1966. 3. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined the Food Inspector Sri Irtiqa Fazli as PWI and in defence the applicant examined Bhagwan Swaroop as DW 1. The Public Analyst Dr. R. S. Srivastava was examined as a court witness u/S. 540 CrPC. 4. The trial court believed the prosecution case and convicted the applicant under section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 1000/. Against his conviction the applicant went up in appeal which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut on 4th September, 1967 and it is against that order that the present application in revision has been filed in this court. 5. I have heard Sri Madan Behari Lal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jitendra Kumar, representing the State at some length. By my order dated 21.8.1968. I allowed two weeks time to the applicant to file an application for adding a ground in the memo of revision provided an application to that effect was filed on behalf of the applicant `by Friday next'. Accordingly an application dated 29.8.1968 was filed by the learned counsel for the applicant in the office on 5.9.1968. By that application the learned counsel sought to add ten more grounds in the memo of revision. Since I had allowed the applicant only to add one more ground in the memo of revision I dismissed the applicant's application dated 29.8.1968 on 6.9.1968. Thereupon another application was filed by the applicant dated 6.9.1968 in which the prayer was to add the following ground in the memo of revision : "Because the conviction of the applicant is bad in law and against the weight of evidence as the mandatory provisions of S. 11(3), Rr. 7, 17 and 18 read with form no. VII of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 have not been followed and the effect of admission of Public Analyst has not been considered". 6. 7, 17 and 18 read with form no. VII of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 have not been followed and the effect of admission of Public Analyst has not been considered". 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jitendra Kumar the learned counsel representing the State I allowed the applicant's application for adding a ground in the revision on that date. Sri Madan Behari Lal, learned counsel for the applicant made only one submission before me and that was that there was no compliance with Rr. 7 and 18 of the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. R. 18 runs thus: "A copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent to the Public Analyst separately by registered post or delivered to him or to any person authorised by him." 7. U/R. 18 the sending of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet to the Public Analyst is essential and mandatory. R. 7 of the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act deals with the duties of the Public Analyst. Sub-R. (1) of R. 7 reads as follows : "On receipt of a package containing a sample for analysis from a food inspector or any other person the public analyst or an officer authorised by him shall compare the seals on the container and the outer cover with specimen impression received separately and shall note the condition of the seals thereon". 8. I have carefully gone through the record of the case and I find that there is nothing to show on the record that the Public Analyst compared the seals on the container and the outer cover with the specimen impression received separately as provided by R. 7 of the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 9. The object of the rules quoted above framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is to prevent the possibility of tampering with the sample before it reaches the Public Analyst. There is nothing on the record to show that the two rules mentioned above were complied with by the Public Analyst. 9. The object of the rules quoted above framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is to prevent the possibility of tampering with the sample before it reaches the Public Analyst. There is nothing on the record to show that the two rules mentioned above were complied with by the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst merely shows that the seals of the phial sent to him were intact and unbroken but it does not show that the seals on the container and the outer cover were compared with the specimen impression of the seal sent, separately by post. Unless that was done we cannot be sure that the sample which reached the Public Analyst was not tampered with on the way. It naturally follows that it cannot be said with certainty that the report of the Public Analyst refers to the sample of butter that was taken from the applicant by the Food Inspector and sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. 10. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons mentioned above I find force in the contention made by by Sri Madan Behari Lal and I allow the revision and set aside the orders passed by the courts below and also set aside the convention and the sentence of of imprisonment and fine imposed on the applicant under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. Fine if paid shall be refunded to the applicant.