Amar Nath vs State of U.T.Chandigarh

S.S. Dewan, J.

In this criminal revision Amar Nath petitioner assails his conviction under S. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, the Act). The learned Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, sentenced him to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a file of Rs. 1000/ appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. upheld his conviction and sentence. Feeling aggrieved he has now come up by way of revision.

The broad outline of the prosecution case is that on October 10, 1978, Gian Chand, Food Inspector, purchased 600 grams of wheat atta from the premises of Amar Nath petitioner at village Daddu Majra (Union Territory, Chandigarh), for analysis on payment of Rs. 090P. The sample of wheat atta sent to the Public Analyst was found to contain 0 192 percent alcoholic acidity against the maximum prescribed standard of'' 0 19 percent and hence it was found to be adulterated. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Gian Chand, Food Inspector, P.W. 1. and Sardul Singh, PW 2. The petitioner denied the, prosecution allegations and pleaded false complicity in the case. Joginder Singh, Ahmad and Yash Pal were examined by him in defence.

The only argument laboured with little persistence on behalf of the petitioner is that there was no compliance of Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, the Rules). According to Rule 14 of the Rules, samples of food for the purpose of analysis shall be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or in other suitable containers which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation or in the case, of dry substance, entrance of moisture and shall be carefully scaled.

In this case it appears that no such precaution was taken. As a result of the sample having remained with the public Analyst for a long time rot analysis, the likelihood of the atta being deteriorated, cannot be ruled out. It is admitted by the Food Inspector, when he was examined on 2271981, that the sample of wheat atta was sealed in packets. Under the circumstances, I am satisfied that the test was not carried according to the prescribed conditions and there might be excess of alcholic acidity in the sample of atta due to the factors mentioned above, after the packets had been scaled. The delay on the part of the Public Analyst is also considerable and the samples were not taken in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules. There is room for doubt in this case, the benefit of which should be given to the accusedpetitioner. Giving the benefit of doubt. I set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and acquit him of the charge. Fine if realised shall be refunded to him.