Jagjit Sihgh, J. - (1.) This appeal was filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, by obtaining special leave to appeal, under provisions of subsection (3) of section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against an order of acquittal passed by Shri D.D. Gautama, Magistrate First Class, Delhi.
(2.) The prosecution case was that on September 19, 1966, Sukh Lal was selling Ghee at shop No. 7328, in Prem Nagar, Delhi. Sh. K.D. Sachdev, Food Inspector, went to the shop and purchased some Ghee for getting it analysed by the Public Analyst. On the Public analyst analysing the sample sent to him found it adulterated due to excess of 0.56% moisture in it. The Municipal Corporation, through the Assistant Municipal Prosecutor, filed a complaint against Sukh Lal and Prakash Chand, under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Prakash Chand was also prosecuted as he is owner of the shop and licence for sale of sweets in that shop was issued in his name. Shri Gautama, Magistrate First Class, Delhi, tried the case. On the application of the accused the sample of Ghee which had been given to Sukh Lal was sent to the Director Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, for being analysed. The certificate issued by the Director also showed that the Ghee was adulterated, but the percentage of moisture found was 0.45 and not 0.56 as reported by the Public Analyst. Shri Baldev Bansal, who is running a private food testing laboratory, appeared on behalf of the accused and deposed that moisture contained in the upper and the lower layers of Ghee is different, depending upon the time the Ghee has been kept at one place. On August 29,1967 the learned Magistrate acquitted both the accused after holding that the excess in moisture was negligible and may have been due to the fact that the sample was taken during the rainy season.
(3.) As provided by rule A.11.14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, the standard quality of Ghee produced in the Union territory of Delhi should not contain moisture exceeding 0.3%. Under section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act a certificate purporting to be signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of the Public Analyst and is final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. As according to the certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory the sample sent to him contained 0.45% of moisture as against the maximum permissible percentage limit of 0.03, the Ghee sold has to be regarded as adulterated. Moreover the excess institute was to the extent of 50% over and above the permissible maximum limit and cannot be considered to be negligible. The other ground on which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused was also not tenable as there was no evidence to show that any moisture had crept in due to rainy season. The sale was made on September 19 and by then rainy season is generally over. According to Sukh Lal himself the Ghee was lying near a furnace (Karahi). Due to the proximity of the furnace the possibility of moisture from the Ghee evaporating may have been there but not of moisture getting into that article of food.;