I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a line of Rs. 1,000.00 in default of payment of which, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half months more under section 7(2) read with section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana. His appeal before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, also failed.
(2.) The prosecution version is that on Sept. 20, 1973, Dr. B.K. Basra, Food Inspector, purchased 600 grams of Besan out of a total lot of 16 kilograms from the petitioner. The purchased Besan was put into three dry clean bottles which were labelled and properly sealed. One sealed bottle was handed over to Nand Lal petitioner, the second was sent to the Public Analysts for his examination and report and the third was retained by Dr. B.K. Basra himself. The sample sent to the Public Analyst was found to be insect infested and on that basis a complaint was filed against the petitioner in the Court of Mr. B.C. Rajput, Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana.
(3.) The primary contention of Mr. P.S. Kang, learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the Besan in question was not fit for human consumption and the report of the Public Analyst cannot be said to satisfy the ingredients of the offence as defined in section 2(f) of the Act. His submission is that the Public Analyst has neither given the percentage or the number of insects found in the sample of the Besan nor has opined that the same was unfit for human consumption. He has drawn my attention to the report of the Public Analyst, Exhibit PF, in which he has expressed his opinion on the following words : JUDGEMENT_55_LAWS(P&H)8_19791.html And am of the opinion that the sample contains living insects." Mr. Kang further relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Shri Kacheroo Mai 1975(11) FAC 223. To my mind, the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly right in submitting that the prosecution evidence is totally deficient in securing the conviction of the petitioner in the light of the above noted judgment of the Supreme Court. In almost similar circumstances, I had set aside the conviction of one Nand Lal in Criminal Revision No. 171 of 1976, decided on July 27, 1979. That judgment fully covers the facts of this case. For the reasons recorded therein, I allow the petition and set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. Petition allowed.;