A.S. Bains, J. - (1.) Bhim Sain has been convicted under section 16(1) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 500.00 or in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
(2.) According to the report of the Public Analyst, the sample of turmeric powder (Haldi) was adulterated as it contained lead chromate equivalent to 48.8 parts per million parts of lead. On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, the petitioner was tried and convicted as aforesaid. His conviction and sentence were confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge.
(3.) It was argued by Mr. Goyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that according to the Public Analyst, the lead chromate content was very microscopic, i.e. 0.005 per cent; that the lead chromate is more costlier than the turmeric powder and that nobody will adulterate any stuff with a more costlier item. He has relied on Sham Lal Vs. The State of Punjab, 1974 C.L.R. 407 , Ram Lal Vs. The State, 1974 FAC 415 and Dalip Singh Vs. The State, 1974 FAC 422 . I find merit in what Mr. Goyal says. The whole purpose of adulteration is to earn profits by indulging in selling adulterated food stuffs and if a more costlier item is to be mixed then the purpose of adulteration is not served. Admittedly, lead chromate is more costlier than the turmeric powder and the extent of adulteration is also microscopic and such a microscopic content of lead could be either by use of the vessel which was used for putting the sample in the bottle, or the spoon which was used handling the turmeric powder or by the use of unclean bottles, and that the possibility of such an adulteration cannot be excluded by the use of these articles. The petitioner is retail-seller and not a wholesale dealer. It is in evidence that he has been also dealing with the articles like dyes and sandoor etc. which contain lead and the possibility of presence of lead contents cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt.;