M.M. Punchhi, J. - (1.) The petitioner was found to be in possession of chilli-powder meant for sale at his business premises. The Food Inspector on 17.8.1978 purchased a sample thereof and divided the same in three equal parts. He bottled those parts of chilli-powder in three dry and clean bottles which, intern, were duly labelled, stoppered and securely fastened. The sample sent to the Public Analyst was examined on 6.9.1978. It brought the result that there were 7 living weevils, 35 living meal worms and one dead insect. It also had ash at 9.10 per cent against the minimum prescribed of 8 per cent. It bad grit at 2.85 per cent. On these data, the sample was said to be unfit for human consumption. The petitioner was convicted under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000.00. The conviction and sentence was maintained by the appellate Court.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a number of points to challenge the conviction, but I think that the one pertaining to the delay in-examining the sample Carrie much weight in the light of Om Parkash Vs. State of Punjab, Chandigarh Law Reporter 220 , a decision rendered by Surinder Singh, J. In the instant case, as noted earlier, the sample was taken on 17.8.1978 and it was analysed on 6.9.1978. Thus the sample remained analysed for a period of 20 days and it had been taken during the rainy season. Not a word has been said by Moti Ram Food Inspector in his statement that he added any preservative thereto. And nothing of the kind is even inferential from the report of the Public Analyst. Thus after a period of 20 days, he found that there were so many live creatures except one which was dead. Not a word has been said as to what would be the life span of these insects and could they be present even at the time of taking of the sample and survive till the date of analysis? Nothing has been made available on the present record to show that if from the substance itself the insects had developed, could they or could they not have caused any imbalance in ash or grit. In some what similar circumstances, when the sample taken was of wheat flour, benefit of doubt was extended in Om Prakash's case (supra). In that case also, no preservative had been added to the sample of wheat flour and it had remained unanalysed for about 24 days. Agreeing with the principle laid down therein, I deem it appropriate to extend the benefit of doubt to the petitioner in this case.
(3.) Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed and the accused-petitioner is acquitted of the charge. Revision allowed.;