Amrit Lal vs State of Punjab

B.S. Yadav, J.

Amrit Lal Petitioner runs a Karyana shop in Ferozepur City. On 27th November, 1980 P.W. 1 Dr. K. N. Bubber who in those days was exercising the powers of Food Inspector, accompanied by Dr. Raghu Nath Sahai and Hub Lal, Peon, (P.W.3), inspected usual formalities prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act) and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short the Rules), the Food Inspector purchased 450 grams of Saunf from the petitioner against payment. He divided the quantity of Saunf so purchased into three equal parts and each part was separately put in one clean and dry bottle. The bottles were steppered, labeled and sealed in the manner provided under the Act and the Rules. He also prepared usual memos at the spot. One part of the sample along with Form VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh, through a special messenger. A copy of Form VII was also sent separately to the Public Analyst through the same messenger. The Public Analyst vide report Exhibit PF found 4 living and 8 dead insects and one excrete in the sample. He opined that the contents were unfit for human consumption. The petitioner exercised his rights under section 13 (2) of the Act and got the second part of the sample sent to Central Food Laboratory, whose Director, vide report Exhibit PJ, found 5 dead insects in the sample. The analysis further revealed :

(1) Organic extraneous matter : 0.22%

(2) Inorganic extraneous matter : Nil

(3) Insect damaged seeds : 0.52%

(4) Edible seeds other than saunf : Nil

The petitioner was prosecuted on the basis of the complaint filed by the Food Inspector.

The accused when examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded that he was a petty shopkeeper and dealt in cattle feed and general merchandise. He further pleaded that he used to purchase goods from wholesale dealers and Saunf was such a commodity that it gets insect infested within a very short period which fact cannot be detected except with the help of microscope.

The learned Magistrate found the prosecution case proved and convicted the petitioner under section 7 read with section 16 (1) (i) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/. Imprisonment in default of payment of fine was also awarded. In appeal filed by the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, maintained his conviction and sentence. Still not feeling satisfied, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that except for the presence of five dead insects in the sample the constituents of the sample were present in the quantities within the prescribed limits of variability. This argument has force. Clause A.05.11 of item No.A.05 titled Spices and Condiments of the Appendix B of the Rules reads as follows :

"Fennel (Saunf), whole means the dried ripe fruits of Foeniculum vulgar Mill. The proportion of extraneous matter including dust, dirt, stone,lumps of earth, chaff. stem or straw shall not exceed 5.0 per cent by weight. The proportion of edible seeds other than fennel shall not exceed 5.0 per cent by weight.

The amount of insect damaged matter shall not exceed 5 per cent by weight.

Explanation The term `insect damaged matter'' means species that are partially or wholly bored by insects."

Extraneous matter has been clarified in Note I appended at the end of that item. That Note reads as follows :

"Note (1) The extraneous matter wherever prescribed under this item shall be classified as follows :

(a) Organic extraneous matter such as chaff, stems, straw.

(b) Inorganic extraneous matter such as dust, dirt, stones and lumps of earth.''

Thus it is clear that except for the presence of 5 dead insects in the sample the other constituents were present within the prescribed limits of variability.

The question that arises is whether the presence of five dead insects would make the article of food in question adulterated. Of course, the Public Analyst vide report Exhibit PE had opined that the contents were unfit for human consumption. However, that report has been superseded by the report Exhibit PJ of the Director. Central Food Laboratory. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Director, Central Food Laboratory has not opined that the presence of five dead insects made the sample insectinfested or that on account of the presence of those insects the sample was unfit for human consumption and hence the sample cannot be treated as adulterated. In support of his contention he has relied upon State (Delhi Administration) v. Puran Mal, 1985 (2) Recent Criminal Report 52 (SC) A. I. R. 1985 Supreme Court 741 wherein their Lordship remarked :

"Even if the nine worms found by the Public Analyst in the sample are considered to be insects, certificate of the Public Analyst does not support the case of the prosecution that the lal mirchi powder was adulterated, for the Public Analyst has not expressed his opinion that the lal mirchi powder was either worminfested or inspectinfested or that on account of the presence of the mealworm the sample was unfit for human consumption. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not established by any satisfactory evidence the requirement of S. 2(1)(f) of the Act."

The above observation clearly apply to the present case. In the present case only five dead insects were found in the sample cannot be treated to be adulterated within the meaning of section 2(1) (f) of the Act.

For the foregoing reasons I accept the present revision petition and set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and acquit him of the charge framed against him. Fine, if paid, be refunded to him.