Madan Mohan Punchhi, J. - (1.) On 26-10-1976 the petitioner, while he was at his shop, was visited by the Food Inspector, Dr. P. G. Narula, when he was found to be in possession of eight packets of chilli-powder weighing hundred grams each. The said packets apparently appeared to be packed by Swastika Industry and Laboratories, bearing lot No. 6795/XV1/21 of Bagichi Maya Ram, Amritsar. The requisite samples were purchased by the Food Inspector from the petitioner and the chilli-powder was lent to the Public Analyst. The testing brought the result that the chilli-powder was insect infested. This attracted prosecution of the petitioner under Sec. 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned trial Court convicted him of the charge but, for reasons which are not clear, sentenced him only to three months rigorous imprisonment and ordered him to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00. The appellate Court maintained the conviction and sentence and, thus, the petitioner is in revision in this Court.
(2.) The sole contention raised by Shri A. N. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that during trial the petitioner had made an application 4 before the learned Magistrate pleading therein that, on the day of the occurrence itself, i.e. on 26-10-1976, the petitioner had purchased the commodity from a dealer "Wadhaiva Ram Dharampal" of Rajpura Township and thereby had sought protection of the Court under Sec. 19(2) of the Act. The said provision of law provides that a vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves that he had purchased it from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed form; and that the article of food, while in his possession, was properly stored and that he sold it in the same state a3 he purchased it. The learned trial Judge passed an order thereon that the petitioner may make use of it in his statement under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner did make use thereof in his statement under Sec. 313 of the said Code and pleaded that he had purchased the article from the dealer named therein. The learned trial Judge thought that mere purchasing was not enough and it was further to be proved that the article of food, while in possession of the petitioner, was properly stored and that he sold it in the same state as he purchased it. It also took the view that under Sub-section (1) of Sec. 19 of the Act, it shall be no defence in a prosecution for an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food to allege merely that the vendor was not ant of the nature, substance and quality of the food sold by him.
(3.) As is plain, if the petitioner was right that he had purchased the article the day itself on which the offence was committed, then the question of his properly storing the article in the same state as he purchased it was neither here nor there, unless some untoward incident had happened in the interval. The petitioner having pleaded purchased from a dealer, the Court did not apply its mind to summon the dealer, under Sec. 20-A of the Act. It is on these premises that the petitioner came to be convicted and sentenced.;