Jaswinder Singh vs The State

Muni Lal Verma, J.—The petitioner was convicted u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for Possessing adulterated turmeric powder for sale by the learned Magistrate First Class, Amritsar, and was sentenced to 6 months'' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1500/- in default to farther suffer 3 months'' rigorous imprisonment.

In short, the prosecution case is that the appellant runs a grocer's shop in the locality known as Habibpura, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar, On 6th July, 1971, at 5 P.M., Mangat Ram, Food Inspector Municipal Committee, Amritsar, went to his shop and obtained 450 grams out of 3 kilograms of turmeric powder, contained In a tin, by way of sample for analysis on payment of 90 paise as its price. Dr. B.R. Chawla, Kishan Chand and Buta Ram were then present. The sample of the turmeric powder was divided into three equal parts and the same were poured into three dry and clean bottles, which were duly fastened and sealed. One of the said bottle was given to the petitioner, the second bottle was kept in the office of the Medical Officer of Health at Amritsar and the third bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, who, on due analysis of the turmeric powder, found that It contained moisture 14.5 per cent instead of 13 per cent, i.e. 1.5 per cent more than the maximum prescribed standard. Hence, the petitioner was prosecuted. He admitted the taking of the simple of turmeric powder, but pleaded that the same had been poured into the bottles which were wet, and that it had rained on 5th and 6th July 1971, heavily at Amritsar. The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution case and recorded the conviction and sentence as stated above. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner had appealed, hut the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Dissatisfied with the said result, he has come to this Court In revision. I have heard the arguments and examined the record.

The facts, that the petitioner possessed turmeric powder for sale, that sample had been obtained from the said powder by Mangat Ram, Food Inspector, for analysis and that on due analysis of the same the public Analyst reported that it contained moisture to the extent of 1.5 per cent more than the prescribed maximum standard and that it had rained at Amritsar on 5th July, 1971, i.e. one day before the taking of the sample are amply borne out by the evidence present on record and are not disputed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the turmeric powder might have contracted moisture from the atmosphere as it was the rainy season and also that it had rained on 5th as well as on 6th July, 1971, and that the excess of moisture, found in the turmeric powder, was negligible, which should not be taken notice of. I have not been able to agree with him. Mensrea is not essential ingredient of the offence punishable under the Act, and the Act imposes the penalty when the act constituting an offence is committed, no matter how innocently; and an offence within the Act is committed although the seller does not know that the article sold was not of nature and substance and quality demanded. Precisely speaking, knowledge is not a necessary ingredient of any offence under the Act. An article of food may be adulterated by direct or indirect Act. When the seller exposes an article of food to such conditions and atmosphere, which pollute it or reduce its quality, it would constitute indirect act on his part in selling adulterated food. In rainy season, a seller of articles of food is required to store the same into air-tight containers, so that the quality of the same is not reduced by the atmosphere. Therefore, the defence that the moisture in the turmeric powder night have increased due to the dampness in the atmosphere on account of the rainy season, is not, in my opinion available to the petitioner. He was himself negligent and careless in not storing the turmeric powder in such tins which would not permit its moisture being increased on account of the rainy season. So, he is to blame himself and none else when the turmeric powder is found adulterated on account of its moisture being in excess of the prescribed standard. Further, I have not been referred to any material on record or to any data in a book or authority. Which could show that the moisture of the turmeric powder could have been possibly increased by 1.5 per cent in excess of the prescribed standard on account of rainy season. Then, there is nothing with the learned counsel for the petitioner to show as to how much out of 1.5 per cent moisture found in excess of prescribed standard, was or could be contributed due to the atmosphere during rainy season. So, the argument that the excess extending to 1.5 per cent in the moisture of the turmeric powder of the prescribed standard might have been due to the dampness in the atmosphere on account of rainy season is based on conjecture and is not supported by any Data. At least, the said argument is vague The prosecution, in the instant case, succeeded In proving affirmatively that the turmeric powder, possessed by the petitioner for sale, was adulterated because it contained 1.5 per cent moisture in excess of the prescribed standard. The petitioner put forward a defence that the said excess of moisture in the turmeric powder might have been due to the rainy season. But, as indicated above, he has been unable to substantiate the said defence. Surely, the case put forward by the prosecution, which has been substantiated by evidence, cannot be disbelieved merely because of vague suggestion or allegation that rainy season might have been the cause of increase in the moisture of the turmeric powder.

No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner thinks that the excess in the moisture of the turmeric powder to the extent of 1.5 par cent of the prescribed standard is negligible, but he has not referred to me to any data, on the basis of which he calls the same to be negligible. In absence of any data or without any assistance from any book or authority, I think, the argument that the said excess was negligible cannot be seceded to it, thus, follows that both the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are without basis and, as such, the same are overruled. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner was rightly held guilty u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, because he contravened the provisions contained in section 7(1) of the Act.

In the last, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged for reduction in sentence. Admittedly, excess of moisture in the turmeric powder was not injurious to the health of the purchaser and the petitioner had been foolish not to observe the necessary care and caution in storing the turmeric powder in air-tight container. Though, as indicated above, it cannot be maintained that the whole of the excess in the moisture of the turmeric powder could be due to atmosphere in the rainy season, yet the possibility that some of the said excess might have been QUO to it, may be there. These, I feel, are adequate and special reasons for reduction in the sentence of imprisonment. The petitioner has already suffered nine days'' rigorous imprisonment and in the circumstance of the case I think, the same and the amount of fine imposed upon him would suffice.

Consequently, I maintain the conviction of the petitioner but reduce his sentence to imprisonment already suffered by him with a fine of Rs. 1500/-; in default to further suffer 3 months'' rigorous imprisonment. The direction that half of the fine, if realised, would be paid to the Municipal Committee, Amritsar, is maintained. The petitioner would deposit, if he has not so far paid, the amount of fine in the trial Court within a month from today. Otherwise, the warrant to commit him to custody in default or payment of fine would be issued and he would serve the sentence of imprisonment according to law.