Sarkaria J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of a learned single Judge of the High Court of Delhi. It arises our to these circumstances:On Jan, 8, 1969, B. R. Kochhar, Food Inspector, purchased 600 grams of Kaju-Tukra (cashewnut pieces) as sample for analysis from the grocery shop of Kacheroo Mal, Respondent in Khari Baoli, Delhi. The sample was divided into three equal parts and sealed into three bottles. An inventory was prepared which was read over and explained to the respondent, who thereafter signed it. One of these bottles was given to the respondent, one was retained by the Inspector, while the third was handed over to the Public analyst on the following day for examination. The Public Analyst has reported: "Date of Analysis:10-1-1969. Insect-infested pieces of Kajus:21.9% and I am of the opinion that the same is adulterated due to insect infested pieces of Kajus to the extent of 21.9%."
(2.) On the preceding facts, the Food Inspector filed a complaint for prosecution of the respondent in respect of an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act). The trial Magistrate convicted and sentenced him for six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of rupees 1000/-. Kacheroomal's appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, failed. Against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, he preferred a revision to the High Court. The revision was heard by a learned Judge who held that since no living insect was found in the sample pieces examined by the analyst, the same could not be called "insectinfested" within the contemplation of Section 2 (i) (f) of the Act. The learned Judge was of the opinion "that the presence of living insects is necessary before an article insects is necessary before an article could be called "insect-infested". According to him, "the intention of the legislature by using this word in Section 2 (i) (f) in the sentence 'if the article is insect-infested' clearly is that at the time of analysis infestation by insects should be present". It was further observed that if only dead insects were present, the sample could be called 'insect-damaged' and not 'insect-infested'. Since the report of the Public Analyst did not show the presence of living insects in the Kaju sample pieces, it was concluded that the same could not be said to be 'adulterated'. On this reasoning, the revision-petition was allowed and the conviction of Kacheroo Mal was set aside. Hence this appeal by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
(3.) Having heard the learned Counsel on both sides, we are of opinion that the construction put by the learned Judge of the High Court is manifestly erroneous. It has been disapproved by a Division Bench of the same High Court in Dhanraj v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, ILR (1970) 2 Delhi 681. Indeed, Mr. D. Mukherji, the learned Counsel for Kacheroo Mal has not tried to support it.;