B.S.YADAV, J. - (1.) ON 10th July, 1972 P.W. 1 Megh Nath, Government Food Inspector, accompanied by P.W. 2 Dr. K.C. Singhal and Mool Chand Peon inspected the shop of the accused situated in village Nangal Dargu. After observing usual formalities prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act) and Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short the Rules), the Government Food Inspector purchased 450 grams of ajowan from the accused out of about 2 Kgs of ajowan contained in a pipi. He divided the purchased quantity of ajowan into thee equal parts and each part was separately put in one clean and dry bottle. The bottles were then duly stoppered, labeled and fastened. One part of the sample along with Form VII was sent to the Public Analyst. A copy of Form VII with the impression of seal used was separately sent under registered post to him. The public Analyst vide report Exhibit PD opined that the sample contained 14.1% organic extraneous matter as against the maximum prescribed standard of 3%. On receipt of the above report the Government Food Inspector filed a complaint against the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner, when examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, denied the persecution allegations and pleaded that he was not carrying on any shop. In his defence the had examined D.W.1 Ram Kumar and D.W.2 Umrao, who have supported his plea. The learned trial court believed the prosecution evidence and convicted him under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Imprisonment in default of payment of fine was also awarded. The petitioner filed an appeal but the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Narnaul, who heard it dismissed the same. The petitioner has now come to this court in revision.
(3.) TO appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is necessary to reproduce here clauses (1) and (m) of section 2(ia) of the Act. "2. In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :- (ia) 'adulterated' an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated :- xx xx xx xx (i) if the quality or purity of the articles falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability, which renders it injurious to health (m) if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability but which does not render it injurious to health: Provided that, where the quality or purity of the article, being primary food, has fallen below the prescribed standards or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability, in either case, solely due to natural cases and beyond the control of human agency, then such articles shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this sub-clause." There can be no two opinions that ajowan is to be considered as agricultural produce in its natural form and would, therefore, fall in the category of primary food as defined in clause (xii-a) of section 2 of the Act. The standard of purity of ajowan has been laid down in clause A.05.23 of item A.05 titled 'Spices and Condiments,' in Appendix B appended to the Rules as follows :- "A.05.23 Ajowan (Bishop's weed) means the dried pipe seeds of Trachyspsrmum ammi (Linn) Sprague. The proportion or organic and inorganic extraneous matter shall not exceed 3 per cent and 2 per cent respectively. The seeds shall be free from living insects, insect fragments and rodent contamination visible to the eyes. "Extraneous matter" has been clarified in Note (1) appended at the end of that item as follows :- 'The extraneous matte wherever prescribed under this item shall be classified as follows :- (a) Organic extraneous matter such as chaff, stems, straw. (b) Inorganic extraneous matter such as dust, dirt, stones and lumps of earth." As noticed earlier, in the sample seized from the petitioner organic extraneous matter was found present to the extent of 14.1 per cent as against the maximum of 3 per cent. Therefore, the question that arises is whether in the present case the sample can be treated as adulterated.;