GAJRAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADULTERATION of ghee is subject matter of the legal debate in this revision petition. The Sessions Judge, Bundi by judgment dated 27. 8. 1983 confirmed the conviction of the accused under Section 7/16 of the Food ADULTERATION Act and the sentence of six months with a fine of R. 1,000/-was imposed.

(2.) THE accused is not satisfied and has come up in this revision. THE sample was taken up on 21. 8. 1976. It was found that in a Dalda tin was kept there one and a half kg. ghee. Food Inspector purchased 450 gms. of ghee and paid Rs. 10. 50 as price. As usual the sample was devided in three parts and the chemical examination was done by the Public Analyst on 24. 8. 1976. Report dated 11. 9. 1976 opined that the sample of ghee does not conform to the prescribed standard of the purity. THE adulteration was vanaspati. On 9. 10. 1976 a complaint was filed against the petitioner. After recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses and examining the petitioner under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. the above conviction was recorded. Mr. Tikku learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the requirement of Section 10/7 is that the prosecution to take sample before two independent witnesses and motbirs only of the same department were utilised. He then argued that the sample was taken on 21. 8. 1976 and the report was of 11. 9 1976. He finally argued that these infirmities in the prosecution case is that the report of the public analyst was not given within 10 days as required by Rule 9 (J) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.

(3.) THE court has discussed the cases under 9 (J) in para 16 and particular reference to the Andhra Pradesh High Court and this preceded to Bombay High Court. THE court noticed the judgment of Chhoga Ram where the provision was held mandatory. In that case the court acquitted the accused. THE judgment of Public Prosecutor Hyderabad Vs. J. Murlidhar (2) has been relied upon by the Hon'ble Justice Agrawal in this case but the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dal-Chand Vs. Municipal Corporation Bhopal (3) has expressly overruled this Andhra Pradesh judgment as in the last para it has been mentioned as under: "i am clearly of the view that rule 9 (J) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act was directory and not mandatory. THE decision in Public Prosecutor Vs. Murlidhar (Super) and Bhola Nath Vs. State (1977 Cr. L. R. 154 cal.) to the extent that they hold the rule 9 (J) was not mandatory was not good law. THE petition is dismissed. "