JUDGEMENT
Murlidhar -
(1.)THE two revisionists have been convicted under Section 7/16 Prevention or Food Adulteration Act and each of them sentenced to six months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default further R. I. for six months.
(2.)THE prosecution case was that on 19-10-1974 at about 2. 00 p. m. food inspector had taken a sample of whole Dhania exposed at the Kirana shop of the revisionists' firm styled as Nanhmmal Santosh Kumar. On analysis this sample was found to contain 12. 79 peroent inorganic extraneous matter including insect infested Dhania which is mare than the prescribed maximum limit of 7% for such matter and was, therefore, adulterated. THE revisionists are father and son and were prosecuted as alleged owners of the firm. THE Magistrate convicted and the conviction was upheld in appeal.
The sole point pressed in revision in that the Dhania in question was not for human consumption but only to be used as seed. The food inspector in his statement admitted that the shop had a board inside it, that they dealt in pesticides and seeds like Jira, Haldi, Ohania, Sauf, Ajwain, Mirch, Methi and oil for purning and massage purposes, Furthar that none of the above articles was fit for human consumption (Khaddya Yogya Nahin Hat). The food inspector, however, regarded, this board as fraudulent because (1) it was hanging inside the shop and was not easily visible from outside, (2) notwithstanding this assertion the shop contained ground Dhania, and Khatai as well as dry fruits like Kaju, Kishmis, Nariyal and this stuff was being sold. The inspector even seized some ground Khatai and Dhania in support of. his observation. It is noteworthy that the samples sent for analysis was of the whole Dhania and not the powdered Dhania taken possession of by him. It has been urged that on these facts, it is not possible to hold beyond reasonable doubt that the Dhania in question was stored for sale as an article for food. Having heard the learned counsel and perused the statement of the food inspector I find substance in the contention. The fact that some articles were being stored for sale in a powdered condition would undoubtedly rule out storing for seed purposes for such powders. That may be a contravention of Rule SO requiring; licence for sale of such spices but that would not necessarily mean that even the spices stored in seed condition should be treated as being sold for food purposes notwithstanding the alleged board specifically declaring that these were for only seed purposes and not for human consumption. As regards the alleged non-prominent position of the board we have only the word of the food inspector to this effect. No site-plan was proved and in fact even the food-inspector's statement does not go to the extent of saying that the board was concealed somewhere to be used in the contingency of a sample being desired. He has merely stated that it was hanging inside and ordinarily a purchaser would not see it. Against this is the fact that if one wants to do business as a dealer in pesticides and agricultural seeds he would have to be known as such for seed buyers would prefer to approach such a dealer rather than a regular Kirana spice merchant for seed needs. The food inspector had the simple course of taking sample of the powdered Dhania open to him to clinch the offence against the revisionists because with regard to that the plea of not being for human consumption might not have been available as it is I find that the article of which the sample was taken was an article of food meant for human consumption is not fully established. The conviction is, therefore, unsustainable.
The revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the revisionists are set aside. The fine if paid shall be refunded. The revisionists are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Revision allowed.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.