Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 827 (MP)

Kanwarlal v. State of M. P.

2002-09-03

S.L.KOCHAR

body2002
ORDER 1. This revision has been filed by the applicant against the judgment dated 31.7.1998 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhanpura District Mandsaur in Cr. Appeal No. 35/97 arising out of the judgment dated 24.12.1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhanpura District Mandsaur in Cr. Case No. 161/83 convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (For brevity 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo RI for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment for fine to suffer further RI for two months. 2. The applicant has been convicted for selling adulterated Namkeen Sev prepared from gram-flour (Besan). Sample was taken on 18.2.1993 by the Food Inspector. According to the Public Analyst's report (Ex. P-5), the sample was not containing any foreign matter, insect or infection, etc., but it contained starch. The sample was not upto the standard as prescribed by the Rules of the Act, for gram-flour. Apart from Besan in the report (Ex. P-5), starch was also present which is contrary to the prescribed standard. Therefore, the Namkeen Sev was found adulterated. 3. I have heard Shri Amit Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri G. Desai, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State and perused the record. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that for Sev, there is no standard prescribed in the Rules of the Act. Therefore, the applicant cannot be convicted. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (1) AIR 1966 SC 1676 (M. V. Krishnan v. State of Kerala) (In this case, no standard for the contents of contents of butter milk was prescribed. Therefore, the Supreme Court has acquitted the accused). (2) 1992(1) MPWN 62 (In this case, the food article was Chironjidana) (3) 1993(1) EFR 486 (Prakashchand v. State of M.P.) In this case, the food article was Gur-Gappa) (4) 1993(2) FAC 25 (Taj Kumar v. U. T.) (In this case, the food article was Amchoor). (5) 1993(2) FAC 107 (State v. Samvandam and others) (In this case, the food aI1icle was tea-infusion mixture of tea, sugar and milk; and no standard was prescribed for it). 5. (5) 1993(2) FAC 107 (State v. Samvandam and others) (In this case, the food aI1icle was tea-infusion mixture of tea, sugar and milk; and no standard was prescribed for it). 5. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the legal position, this Court is of the opinion that there is much force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that -for Namkeen Sev which has been prepared from Besan (Gram-flour) oil, salt and other spices, the standard of gram-flour as prescribed in the schedule could have not been considered to hold the applicant guilty for selling the adulterated food article. There is no specific standard for the contents of Namkeen Sev prescribed under the Rules and its schedule. Therefore, the applicant cannot be held guilty for selling the adulterated food article. 6. According to the Public Analyst's Report (Ex. P-5), the Namkeen Sev was not upto the standard as prescribed for gram-flour and foreign matter i.e. starch was present in it. First of all, the gram-flour (Besan) was not taken as food sample from the applicant and secondly, if in Namkeen Sev some starch was found on analysis, the same could be because of use of edible oil. It is also pertinent to note that no contents were found in the analysis report in Namkeen Sev which was unfit for human consumption. 7. The learned counsel for the State has not been able to controvert the aforesaid legal position. Therefore, in view of the evidence available on record, the applicant cannot be held guilty for selling the adulterated food article. Thus, he is entitled for acquittal. 8. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the applicant stands acquitted of the offence with which he has been charged. The fine, if any, deposited by the applicant shall be refunded to him. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.