P.D. Sharma, J. - (1.) R .C. Shaida accused petitioner was convicted under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - or in default to undergo regorous imprisonment for three months. His appeal against the above was dismissed by the Learned Additional sessions Judge, Delhi and he has come up in revision to this Court.
(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 25th July, 1961, about 10.00 A.M. K.D. Sachdev and M.L. Zutsh. P.W.s, Food Inspectors of the Delhi Municipal Corporation, went to the canteen being run in the premises of D.C.M. Chemical Works Najafgarh Road, Delhi, which was in the preparation of the curd dahi) sold in the canteen. They purchased 24 ounces of curd dahi' on payment of Rs. -72 nP. and sent a sample thereof to the Public Analyst whose opinion indicated that it was adulterated to the extent of 35.5 per cent added water, which resulted in the present case The accused petitioner pleaded that one S.N. Sharma, was in the charge and D.N. Sharma was functioning as a sale man in the canteen at the relevant time. He, however, admitted that the sample of buffalo milk curd was obtained by the Food Inspectors from the canteen. K.D. Sachdev (P.W. 1. and M.L. Zutshi (P.W. 3) deposed to the effect the accused petitioner was working as a sale man in the canteen and that the former purchased 24 ounces of a buffalo milk curd on payment of Rs. -72nP. as price thereof by way of sample from him. Exhibit P.B. is the receipt granted by the accused petitioner to K.D. Sachdev on receiving Rs. -72nP. as price of the curd bom him. Exhibit P.A. is another document signed by the accused petitioner in taken of the Food Inspector having visited the canteen tun in the premises of D.C.M Chemical Works Najafgarh Road, Delhi, and purchased buffalo milk curd. There is still another document Exhibit P.C. which was also signed by the accused -petitioner suggesting that he had received one of three sealed bottles and a sum of Rs. -72nP As the cost of 24 ounces of pure buffalo curd from the Food Inspector. The oral testimony of the two Food Inspectors and these documents led the trial Court to believe that the accused -petitioner was working as the salesman in the canteen at the relevant time. The statements of the defence witnesses, namely S.K. Mathur (D.W. 1), D.N. Sharma (D.W. 2), S.N. Sharma (D.W. 3) and Diwan hand (D.W. 4) were ignored as of no consequence. The report of Dr. A. Khanna, Public Analyst for Delhi Municipal Corporation Area, Exhibit P. E. indicated that he received on the 5th July, 1961, from K.D Sachdev a sample of buffalo milk curd which he got analysed on 31st July, 1961, and the result thus obtained was as follows : Fat : 4.6 percent. Non Fatty solids 5.8 percent. In his opinion the sample was adulterated to the extent of 35.5 per cent added water. The trial Court from the above inferred that there was no room for doubt that the accused petitioner had committed the offence punishable under section 7 read with section 16 of the Act and proceeded to convict and punish him as already elucidated. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal confirmed the findings of the trial court.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the accused -petitioner in this Court mainly contended that report of the Public Analyst Exhibit P.E. in the circumstances of the case was barely sufficient to show that the sample of the curd obtained by the Food Inspector on 25th July, 1961 was adulterated to the extent mentioned therein, in as muca as no preservative was added to it when the same was placed in the sealed bottle sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and that there was no evidence to show that the same had not undergone any change from the time it was obtained till 31st July, 1961, when it was anaylsed. There is no denying the fact that the Food Inspector failed to add any preservative to the sample of curd purchased by him from the canteen of the accused -petitioner, that he kept it for almost two hours with him before despatching it to the Public Analyst. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dealing with the report of the Public Analyst Exhibit P. E. in paragraph No. 4 of his judgment observed : In the present case the Analyst has not merely given the conclusion but also the date. The fat was found to be 4.6 per cent and non -fatty solids 5.8 per cent. According to the prescribed rules the non -fatty solids should have been 9 per cent. The mode for determining the addition of water, I am told, is to take the difference between the prescribed percentage of non fatty solids and that actually found. This difference represents the rate of water out of the prescribed limit. Then it is worked in terms of percentage. In the present case there was a deficiency of 3.2 percent of non -fatty solids as against the prescribed 9. This deficiency of 3.2 percent out of 9 in term of percentage would come to 35.5.;