IN RE NARSI DAYABHAI Vs. STATE
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
In Re Narsi Dayabhai
Click here to view full judgement.
MR.CHANDRA REDDY,J. -
(1.) This is a petition in Revision against the Order of the District Magistrate confirming that of Sub-Magistrate, Parvatipur, under section 12 (2) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act. The petitioner was charged with an offence under section 29 of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act read with rule 28-E of the rules framed under the Act.
(2.) The case against him was that on the 31st of October, 1953, he had in his possession 101 bags of lak-dhall flour, a prohibited article, for purposes of sale. This lak-dhall, otherwise known as kesari dhall was prohibited from use under rule 28-E which recites:-
"No person shall, either by himself or by any servant or agent, sell or offer or expose for sale, or have in his possession for the purpose of sale, under any description, or use as an ingredient in the preparation of any article of food intended for sale:-
(a) Kesari gram (Lathyrus Sativas) and its products ;
(b) Kesari dhall (Lathyrus Sativas) and its products ;
(c) Kesari dhall flour (Lathyrus Sativas) and its products ;
(d) a mixture of kesari gram (Lathyrus Sativas) and bengal gram (Cicar -Arietinum) or any other gram ;
(e) a mixture of kesari dhall (Lathyrus Sativas) and bengal gram dhall (Cicar Arietinum) or any other dhall ;
(f) a mixture of kesari dhall flour (Lathyrus Sativas) and bengal gram flour (Cicar Arietinum) or any other flour".
Any violation of this rule is punishable under rule 29.
(3.) The defence was that the lak-dhall did belong to him, that the bags were sent by Mahakoshal Roller Flour Mills, Raipur, to one Ch. Visweswara Rao in Par-vatipur and that, as the latter failed to take delivery of the goods on payment of money, the accused who was a banker, was requested by the consignor to store the same in his godowns on condition of paying rent for the godown, and that these goods were to be transported to Rayagada for sale there. This defence found favour with the trial Magistrate who thought that the accused did have this dhall for purposes of sale and that he was only acting as the agent of the proprietors of Mahakoshal Roller Flour Mills, Raipur. In this view, he acquitted the accused. But he ordered the destruction of the goods under section 12 (2) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.