D.P. Uniyal, J. - (1.) THESE are two connected appeals, one by the State Government and another by the complainant, the Municipal Board of Saharanpur, from an order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 10 -9 -1964 acquitting the Respondent Mohd. Yamin for offences Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the prosecution of the Respondent may be briefly stated. On 13 -6 -1963 Head Constable Baboo Khan was on patrol duty. He happened to reach Chakki of one Abdul Razzaq. He found heaps of Shakkar lying there and some labourers mixing Shelkhari in it with spades. He asked the labourers not to leave the place until his return. He went to the police station to inform the Station Officer about it but neither the Station Officer nor the Second Officer was found there. He then met Chief Sanitary Inspector whom he informed about what he had seen at the Chakki. The Chief Sanitary Inspector accompanied by the Food Inspector then proceeded to the Chakki of Abdul Razzaq. They found labourers mixing some thing in the heap of Shakkar. Shortly afterwards the Station Officer and the Dy. S.P. Police also arrived there. On enquiry by the Food Inspector he was told that the stock of shakkar belonged to Mohd. Yamin, the Respondent. The Food Inspector purchased 1 1/2 seers of Shakkar from the Respondent by way of sample after paying its price. He divided the sample into three parts and gave one sample to the Respondent and kept two other samples with him.
(3.) ONE of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst for scientific examination and report. The Public Analyst submitted his report on 11 -7 -1963. The report disclosed that the Shakkar contained 2.4% moisture, 72.7% total sugar, 64.7% sucrose, 17% extraneous matter insoluble in water. The opinion of the Public Analyst was that the Shakkar in question was deficient by 17% in total sugar and by 5.0% in sucrose contents. According to him the extraneous matter insoluble in water, total ash and ash insoluble in Hydrochloric acid exceeded by 15.0%, 10.1% and 13.3% respectively as against the maximum prescribed standards of 2.0%, 6.0% and 0.5% respectively. The Magistrate while holding that the sale of shakkar to the Food Inspector was not voluntary and was made under duress came to the conclusion that the Respondent had stored it for sale and that it was adulterated. He accordingly convicted the accused and sentenced him to one years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - in default six months' R.I. Under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act.;