Ashok Kumar vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.

The petitioner was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, the Act) and sentenced to one year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sangrur. his convictions and sentence were maintained by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur and hence this revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also pursued the impugned orders. A sample of powdered Haldi was purchased by the Food Inspector from the shop of the petitioner on 4.12.1981 at Bhawanigarh. The sample was divided in three parts and the packets were sealed. One of the samples which was sent for report to the Public Analyst revealed that it contained 10 dead insects. After obtaining the sanction for prosecution, the petitioner has been prosecuted and convicted as above.

The main point which has been argued by the petitioner''s counsel is that even though the report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample contained 10 dead insects, yet there was nothing on the record to disclose that the dead insects contained therein were injurious to health and made the same unfit for human consumption. He, therefore, submits that no offence has been committed. Reliance for this purpose is placed on a Supreme Court judgment in State [Delhi Administration] v. Puran Mal, 1985(2) Recent Criminal Reports 52 : AIR 1985 SC 741 , wherein it has been observed as under :

"Even if the nine worms found by the Public Analyst in the sample are considered to be insects, the certificate of the Public Analyst does not support the case of the prosecution that the lal mirch powder was adulterated, for the Public Analyst has not expressed his opinion that the Lal mirchi powder was either worm infested or insectinfested or that on account of the presence of the meal worms 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 Section 2(1)(f) of the Act."

Mr. Inder Partap Singh, learned counsel for the State has, however, argued that it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove in the case of insect infested food that the same was unfit for human consumption. This is just a bald submission of the learned counsel and it has not been supported by any principle or precedent. The above observation clearly applies to the present case. It is the duty of the prosecution to show that the article is adulterated as defined in Section 2(1)(f) of the Act. In the present case only ten dead insects were found in sample. The sample cannot be treated to be adulterated within the meaning of Section 2(1)(f) of the Act.

The revision is, therefore, allowed and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set aside. The petitioner is on bail to which he need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharge. The amount of fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him.