Tek Chand, J. - (1.) Ram Dayal Bajaj has come up in revision from his conviction and sentence awarded to him under Sec. 7(i) read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954. He was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and also ordered to pay a fine of Rs 200.00and in default to undergo four months simple imprisonment.
(2.) The facts of this case are that on 30th of Aug. 1957 PW 1 Food Inspector of Municipal Committee, Batala, purchased "wheat atta from the accused and put the atta into three bags separately sealed each one. They were paper bags. One bag was sent to the Public Analyst and the other to the accused .and the third was retained by the Food Inspector. On 6th Jan. 1958 there was a report of the Public Analyst to the effect that the glutin contents were not 7 percent which is minimum prescribed for the wheat atta but contained 1.7 percent. On the above conclusions of the analysis the present complaint was filed against the accused.
(3.) In this case Shri H.R. Mabajan, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that there was no compliance with rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. According to rule 14 samples of food for the purposes of analysis shall be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or in other suitable containers which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation or in the case of dry substance, entrance of moisture, and shall be carefully sealed.;