MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Vs. HUKAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, with special leave, has been filed against the judgement dated Aug. 19, 1969, passed by Shri J. D. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby he set aside the conviction of the respondent under section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter to be called the Act).

(2.) The relevant facts for the disposal of the appeal are that P.W.l Sukh Mohinder Singh, Food Inspector, on April 12, 1968, purchased 600 grams of curd from the respondent, who was found selling curd at his shop No. 29, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, on payment of Rs. 10.20 vide receipt Exhibit PA for getting the same analysed for which notice Exhibit PB was given to him. Sample was duly sealed in three dry and clean bottles after addition of the requisite preservative. Inventory Exhibit PC was prepared at the spot. The respondent signed all the three documents, Exhibit PA to Exhibit PC, and made a note A to A in his hand on Exhibit PC. One of the sealed bottles was given to the respondent while the other was kept by the Food Inspector. The third bottle was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. On analysis, the sample bottle containing curd was found adulterated due to 1.7 percent, deficiency in fat which according to the Public Analyst vide his report Exhibit PE, is "equivalent to 28.3 Percentage deficiency in fat according to curd of buffalo milk standards as per Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules". On receipt of the report Exhibit PE, complaint under Sec. 7/16 of the Act was filed against the respondent. Shri G.P. Bajewa (P.W.4) fully supported the version given by P.W.1, while P.W.3 Banwari turned hostile, stating that the Food Inspector took the sample after removing the "malai" from the curd. The respondent in his statement under section 342 Crimial P.C. admitted having sold the sample of the curd. He, however, asserted that the Food Inspector took the sample after removing "malai" from the curd. In support of his version, the respondent examined two witnesses who supported the stand taken by the respondent.

(3.) The trial court rejected the defence version and held that the prosecution had fully succeeded in establishing its case. Accordingly, by its judgment dated Nov. 4, 1963, the trial court found the respondent guilty of having sold adulterated curd to the Food Inspector and convicted the respondent under sections 7/16 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 or in default of payment of fine the respondent was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months.