Prakash Narain, J. - (1.) This appeal against acquittal comes before us by special leave against an order dated September 3, 1970 passed by the then Judicial Magistrate 1st Class acquitting the respondents who had been prosecuted under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) Shri Prem Parkash, Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, went to shop No. 1493 A, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, On December 5, 1969 at about 11.00 A M. He found there the respondent Ashok Kumar selling certain goods in the restaurant run in that shop. A quantity of "Paneer" was displayed in a tray on the counter. Shri Prem Prakash disclosed his identity and asked Ashok Kumar to sell him 600 grams of "Paneer" for the purpose of analysis and offered to pay Rs. 6,/- as the price thereof. Ashok Kumar declined to sell the "Paneer" or to accept the price. Thereupon Shri Prem Prakash gave him notice, took 600 grams of "Paneer" and after dividing it kept it in three clean bottles which were sealed. Ashok Kumar had also disclosed that he was a sales man in the said shop which was owned by the respondent Kanwal Nain. The sample so taken was sent to the Public Analyst who, on analysis, found the same to be adulterated inasmuch as there was deficiency of fat to the extent of 7.6 per cent. Ashok Kumar and Kanwal Nain were thereupon prosecuted under the Act for "storing for sale" adulterated "Paneer."
(3.) The defence of the respondents was that they did not sell or "store for sale" "Paneer" as such. This was only used for making "Pakoras" which were served to customers of the restaurant. Therefore, it was contended, no offence under section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act was made out. The trial court found that there was no evidence that "Paneer" as such was being sold by the accused. Therefore, it was held, the rule enunciated by a Bench of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jetha Nand, Cri Appeal Nos. 100-D and 101 of 1964, decided on 13-6-1969 (Delhi) , was attracted and the accused were entitled to acquittal. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi appeals against this finding and the submission is that the trial court did not carefully appreciate the law laid down by this Court in Jetha Hand's case.;