GULAB CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Gulabchand has been convicted by Municipal Magistrate, Ajmer, on September 10, 1962, of an offence under sec. 16 (T) (a) read with sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 200/ -. In default of payment of fine, be has been ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. The petitioner went up in appeal to Sessions Judge, Ajmer, but without success, and he has therefore filed the present revision petition.

(2.) THE facts of this case are not in dispute. THE petitioner is a confectioner and used to sell sweets at his shop in Karakka Chowk, Ajmer city. He professed to prepare the sweets with pure 'ghee'. Food Inspector Kartar Singh P. W. 1 went to the petitioner's shop on March, 10, 1962, at about 6-30 p. m. and gave him a notice (Ex. P. 1) for obtaining a sample of the 'ghee' which' was there at that time. THE sample was taken by the Food Inspector who paid Rs. 3,np 15 as its price to the petitioner. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. Ex. P. 5 is the report of the Public Analyst according to which the sample was found to be adulterated. THE petitioner was therefore prosecuted by the Municipal Prosecuting Inspector, Ajmer, who, it is claimed, had been authorised by the Administrator of the Ajmer Municipal Council to exercise the powers under sec. 20 of the Act. On trial, the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned earlier.

(3.) I would therefore hold that the prosecution has not at all succeeded in proving that the accused sold the 'ghee' to the Inspector so as to be liable for punishment under sec. 16 (1) (a) of the Act and he is entitled to an acquittal in respect of that charge. The accused could perhaps be prosecuted for an offence under sec. 16 (1) (d) of the Act as it was alleged that he was a manufacturer of sweets and had adulterated 'ghee' in his possession, and in the premises occupied by him, but he has not been prosecuted or tried for that offence and I cannot alter the conviction from clause (a) of sec. 16 (1) of the Act to clause (d) thereof.