CHARANJIT LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of Sh. S.K. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, upholding the conviction of the petitioner under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a find of Rs. 1000/ -.

(2.) THE case proceeded on the complaint of Dr. Suraj Bhalla, Food Inspector, who appeared in the case as PW 1. He has testified that in the presence of Partap Singh and Dr. M.M. Jindal, he went to the shop of the petitioner situated on the Afgan Road, Hoshiarpur, on 23rd October, 1978 and purchased from him 450 grams of Haldi for Rs. 4.80 P. for analysis. After completing the formalities, one of the sealed sample bottle was duly sent to the Public Analyst who analysed it and found that the sample contained ash insoluble in dilute H.C.L. to the extent of 1.96% against the maxium permissible limit of 1.5%.He also found that the sample contained grit to the extent of 56%. The sample was accordingly found adulterated. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, complaint was filed for the prosectution of the petitioner.

(3.) THE only point pressed upon me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is borne from the evidence on record that the Haldi purchased by the Food Inspector was exposed for sale and that there is nothng on the record to show that before taking the sampel the contents of Haldi powder were properly mixed up. It is contended that there is, therefore, room for doubt that while the aticle was exposed for sale, some dust must have got into the upper layer. There is substance in his contention. It is necessary for the Food Inspector to take the sample in such a manner that the sample may be true representative. It is no answer that it is for the vendor to give a proper sample since a duty is cast on the Food Inspector in this respect and he must perform his duties according to law. The manner in which the sample has been taken in the instant case cannot be said to be a proper one and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt.