M.R. Sharma, S.S. Sidhu, J. - (1.) This is an application for grant of leave to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 30th Dec., 1977, rendered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul, in a case under section 7 read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act No. 37 of 1954), hereinafter referred to as the Act.
(2.) Shri Aslub Khan, Food Inspector purchased some Khandsari sugar on Aug. 16, 1976, from the respondent who was carrying on the business of Halwai. This sugar was contained in a bag lying at the shop of respondent. On analysis, a sample of this Khandsari sugar was found to contain 0.62 per cent of acid insoluble ash against the maximum prescribed standard of foreign material to the extent of 0.5 per cent, and 0.56 per cent of earthy matter. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held that the respondent was not carrying on the business of sale of sugar and, as such, the purchase of sugar made by the Food Inspector from him did not come within the definition of the word "sale" as mentioned in section 2 (xiii) of the Act.
(3.) The State of Haryana has raised a challenge against the view held by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Mr. Gian Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Advocate-General, Haryana has argued that the sale made to the Food Inspector even under compulsion also attracted the penal provisions of the Act. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1976 (I) F A.C. 43and Municipal Committee, Amritsar Vs. Parkash Chand, 1978 (1) F.A.C. 218. In the first mentioned case, the accused was a wholesale dealer, commission agent, exporter, supplier and manufacturer of various kinds of spices doing business at Bombay. The Food Inspector had purchased from him some turmeric powder which was contained in a bag weighing about 75 Kg. Since the accused person in that case was in fact carrying on the business of sale of turmeric powder also, it was held that the sale of this commodity made by him even under compulsion to the Food Inspector attracted the penal provisions of the Act. In Parkash Chand's case (supra) the Food Inspector had purchased a sample of ginger from a grocer who used to deal with this commodity in the normal course of his business at his shop. Both these authorities are, therefore, distinguishable.;