S.N. Deedwania, J. - (1.) This revision is against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, dated 4-1-1975, confirming the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner.
(2.) The facts briefly stated are these that the accused-petitioner was a producer (Ghani Operator) and dealer in edible oils. He had installed an oil expeller for that purpose, in his premises, situated outside Gogagate, Bikaner. On 11-1-1972 at about 10.30 A. M. Hari Prakash, Food Inspector visited the said premises of the accused and asked him to produce the licence, if he had any, for the manufacture and sale of the edible oils. The accused could not produce any licence. The Food Inspector also purchased 375 Gms. of Sesame oil from the accused. This was divided into three equal parts, kept in three bottles, which were duly sealed. A sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Bikaner, who, after the analysis, was of the opinion that the sample was adulterated. A challan was filed in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, who, believing the prosecution I evidence, convicted the accused for want of licence as required by Rule 50, under Section 16(1)(a)(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as Act) and sentenced him to one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of which, further simple imprisonment for three months. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also convicted the accused-petitioner for adulteration of the oil and convicted and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of which, further three months rigorous imprisonment.
(3.) It was argued by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner that there was no evidence that the accused-petitioner was operating the oil mill without any licence. This argument is misconceived. It is an admitted position that the I accused could not produce the licence on demand by the Food Inspector. The failure on the part of accused-petitioner to produce the licence naturally led to the inference that he had none, otherwise, he could have produced the same I during the course of the trial. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the accused-petitioner was rightly convicted for operating the oil mill without a licence, under Section 16(l)(a)(2) of the Act. It was next argued by the learned counsel for the I petitioner that the specimen of the seal which was affixed, as the sample not sent to the chemical examiner by a separate letter. He drew my attention to the case of State of Gujarat, Appellant v. Shantaben, accused, respondent (A. I. R. 1964. Gujarat Page-136) , wherein, it was thus held : "But to base conviction upon report, the record must show that the Food Inspector and the Public Analyst had complied with Rules 7 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. These rules are framed in order to prevent the possibility of tampering with the sample before it reaches the Public Analyst. Where the report of Public Analyst merely shows that the seals were intact and unbroken, but it does not show that the seals on the container were compared with the specimen seals sent by post to the Public Analyst, the Court cannot be sure that the sample, which has reached the Public Analyst, was not tempered with on the way, Rules 7 and 18 are framed in order to prevent such a possibility.";