I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) This revision petition arisen on the following facts.
(2.) On March 16, 1974 at about 2.15 P. M. Dr. V. S. Bhardwaj went to the shop of the accused and found him selling maize Atta. Dr. Bhardwaj, after disclosing his identity, purchased 750 grams of Atta for 80 paise, divided the same into three equal parts, put these into three bottles and sealed the same in the presence of the accused and Dr. R. P. Ber. One sealed sample was delivered to the accused and the second was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The third sample was retained by him in his office. The Public Analyst, vide this report dated March 26, 1974, declared the same sample in question as not to conform to the prescribed standard as the sample contained living and dead insects. After the receipt of the report, a complaint was filed against the petitioner in the Court of the Municipal Magistrate, Ludhiana. After recording of the evidence the petitioner was sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 by the said Magistrate. His appeal before the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, also failed.
(3.) The solitary argument advanced by Mr. (Jurbachan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Analyst has neither given the percentage or the number of insects found in the sample of the maize atta nor has he opined that the same was unfit for human consumption. In the absence of these necessary ingredients it cannot possibly be held that the Atta was adulterated. To support bis argument, he has referred me to Sec. 2 clause (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which reads as under : "2. Definitions : (a) adulterated an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated - x x x x (f) If the article consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed of deceased animal or vegetable substance or is insect infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption." This provision of law has been the subject matter of consideration of his Lordship of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Shri Kacharoo Mai, 1975 (II) FAC 223. In this regard it has been observed as under : "The phrase" or is otherwise unfit for human consumption can be read conjunctively as well as disjunctively, if it is read conjunctively, that is in association with what precedes it, sub-clause (f) with slight consequent re-arrangement and parenthesis would read like this : if the article is unfit for human consumption on account of (a) it consisting wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, disgusting, rotten, decomposed or deceased animal or vegetable substance or being insect infested, (b) or on account of any other cause " In this view of the sub-clause proof of fitness of the article for human consumption, is a must for bringing the case, within its purview." x x x x In each case it must be proved that the article was unfit for human consumption. In the case of articles for which the rules lay down any minimum standard of purity with reference to any of the vices specified in this sub-clause ; mere proof of the fact that the impurity was in excess of that countenanced by the prescribed standard, would be conclusive to show that the article was unfit for human consumption. The governing ingredient of sub-clause (f) is the quality of the article being unfit for human consumption. If the quality of the article suffer from any of the vices, i.e., filthiness, putrefaction, insect-infestation etc., this sub-clause would be inexorably attracted and on proof of the article being unfit for human consumption, the requirements of the clause would be completely satisfied. Such proof may consist of the report of the Public Analyst. X X X X He should say with particularity as to how and why the percentage of in sect infestation found by him renders the sample unfit for human consumption. Examined in the light of this pronouncement of law, I find that the evidence against the petitioner is wholly deficient.;