R.B.Lal - (1.) THIS appeal by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Maha palika Agra, is directed against the order of acquittal dated 26-4-1977 passed by Sri Yashpal Lukaria, Munsif Magistrate, First Class, Agra.
(2.) FOOD Inspector R. M. Chaturvedi, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, visited the shop of Ashok Kumar, respondent no. I in Nagla Padi locality on 27-12-1974 at 5 P. M. and found the respondent no. 1 selling 'chaney ki dal'. The FOOD Inspector disclosed his identity and gave notice under rule 12 to respondent no. 1 and obtained its receipt (Ex. Ka. 1). He purchased 600 grams of 'Chaney ki dal' from respondent no. 1 on payment of Rs. 1.65 p. as its price. He put the purchased dal in three clean and dry bottles in equal quantity and sealed and wrapped the bottles as required under the rules. He handed over one sample bottle to respondent no. 1. He obtained receipt (Ex. Ka. 2) in token of payment of price and delivery of one bottle of sample dal, from respondent no. 1. He also prepared a report (Ex. Ka. 3) and form no. 7 in triplicate. The Food Inspector sent one bottle of sample dal to the Public Analyst after observing the relevant rules. The Public Analyst gave his report (Ex. Ka. 5) saying that the said sample contained 6.7 per cent khesari dal (Lathyrus Sativus), which rendered the sample of food injurious to health. Thus, the sample was found adulterated. A copy of this report was sent to respondent no. 1 by post. Dr. V. S. Kulshrestha, Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra passed an order for prosecuting respondent no. 1 and, thereafter filed a complaint in court under his own signatures. He prayed that Ashok Kumar be prosecuted for an offence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (briefly the Act) for selling adulterated article of food. Ashok Kumar respondent no. 1, admitted that the Food Inspector had taken a sample of 'chaney ki dal' from his shop and had given one bottle of sample dal to him, but he added that he was not paid the price of dal and the 'chaney ki dal' was meant for animal consumption, as ratab. He had given out this fact to the Food Inspector who did not mention it in his papers.
(3.) THE accused examined one witness Kali Charan (DW 1) in defence. The learned Magistrate observed that under Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the Act, the Food Inspector should have sent 250 grams of 'chaney ki dal' to the Public Analyst for analysis, but in fact, he had sent only 1 80 grams of 'chaney ki dal' to the Public Analyst. Thus, there was violation of Rule 22 which was mandatory. He, therefore, gave benefit of doubt to the accused. For taking this view, the learned Magistrate placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Rajal Das G. N. Pamanani v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1975 SC 189. The learned Magistrate did not record any other finding and did not base his order of acquittal on any other ground.;