Kan Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application by one Kanhaiyalal. He was convicted of an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter to be referred as the "Act", by the learned First Class Magistrate, Abu Road and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, maintained the conviction, but reduced the sentence of fine to Rs. 500/ - only.
(2.) THE facts are not in dispute. The accused is a dealer in food articles at Abu Road and he had a licence under the Act. On 19 -1 -68, P.W.I Shri Sant Kumar, the Food Inspector, Abu Road Municipality, went to the shop of the accused and from a sealed tin of mustard oil he purchased a sample of 375 milliliters for analysis . After the necessary formalities the sample was sent to the Public Analyst at Jaipur, It was found to be below standard on account of its specification value being 186.0 when it should have between 168 to 176 as prescribed under the Rules made under the Act and its B.P. Value was 66.7 when it should have been 68.0 to 60.5. Also the sample had added colour. After obtaining the requisite sanction, the Inspector lodged the complaint in the court with the result stated at the outset. The accused took the stand that the sealed tin had been purchased by him from a licensed dealer at Sumerpur one Gulabchand Anantram, who had received his stock of mustard oil from the manufacturers, B.W. Oil Industries at Jaipur. The tin, according to the accused, had the mark of the manufacturers & a label add he had kept the tin in his shop in the same condition as he received it. The accused examined one witness in defence. He was the Munim of the firm Gulabchand Anantram at Sumerpur. He stated that the tin had been despatched by the Sumerpur firm, to the accused at Abu Road with the 'Bijak' and the firm was having the licence for the last 10 years, but at the relevant time it had been sent for renewal and had not been received back.
(3.) IN assailing the conviction of the accused his learned Counsel contended that the accused was innocent & he could not have been aware that the contents of the sealed tin were below standard and, therefore, he was not guilty. Learned Counsel cited Delhi Bather v. Corporation of Madras, AIE 1940 Mad. 221 and B.K. Verma v. : AIR1971Mad40 in support of his contention.;