MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Vs. MOTI RAM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the order of acquittal dated May 31, 1967, by which Shri D.D. Gautama. Magistrate First Class, Delhi, acquitted Moti Ram and Gulzari Lal in a case under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) Shop No. 89/90 in Dariba Kalan, Delhi, is being used as a restaurant. It is called Mahavir restaurant. On June 29, 1966, at about 7.30 pm., Dina Nath, a Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, went to that restaurant and found Moti Ram, son of Phool Chand, selling Alu Tikkis which were indicated to have been prepared in pure Ghee. The Food Inspector purchased 1500 grams of Alu Tikkis for purposes of getting the same analysed and paid Rs. 12.00 as the price of that article of food to the vendor. The sample of Alu Tikkis thus purchased was divided into three portions and each portion was packed in a clean and dry bottle, which was duly stoppered and sealed. One of these sample bottles was delivered to the Public Analyst. After analysis the Public Analyst reported the sample to be adulterated. The result of his analysis was as under ;

(3.) On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, prosecution was instituted against Moti Ram as the vendor and Gulzari Lal as the person on whose behalf the sale was made. The learned trial Magistrate, however, acquitted both the accused by holding that provisions of sub-section (7) of section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act had not been complied with. The record of the case shows that the sample of Alu Tikkis was taken by the Food Inspector in the presence of another Food Inspector named Shanti Nath and a person called Shubh Ram. It is also in the evidence of Dina Nath that he had asked many public man to become witnesses but only Shubh Ram agreed. Shanti Nath the other food Inspector, stated that a person who was eating something at the shop had agreed to become a witness. An independent private person having been called by the Food Inspector to be present at the time of the taking the sample of Alu Tikkis and that person having witnessed the report regarding the taking of the sample (Exhibit PC) it cannot be said that there was non-compliance with the provisions of sub section 7 of section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. That sub-section requires the Food Inspector who wants to take a sample of any article of food from any person to call one or more persons to be present when such action is taken and to take his or their signatures. The requirements of the sub-section were duly complied with in present case. The mere fact that during the trial of the case the independent private person who was called and whose signature was obtained on the report regarding the taking of the sample did not fully support the prosecution would not mean that there was any non-compliance. This position was not even disputed by Shri Ghan Shyam Dass, learned Counsel for the respondents.