Baldev Singh vs State

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

Petitioner Baldev Singh was convicted by Shri Hardial Singh, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. His appeal was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, vide his order dated 27.5.1985. Feeling aggrieved, he has filed this revision.

Prosecution case is that on 12.10.1981 Kishan Chand, Food Inspector, visited the Cooperative Store situated at Old Bus Stand, Bathinda, where the petitioner was working as a salesman. The petitioner had 300 kgs. of wheatflour in an open bag for sale in his possession. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity and served a demand notice manifesting his intention to purchase sample of wheat flour. 600 grams of wheat flour was purchased, taken into possession and sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst showed that sample of wheat flour contained 12 living insects and the contents as such were unfit for human consumption. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, complaint was filed against the petitioner and after trial, he was convicted.

I have gone through the judgment and the evidence and have given my careful consideration to the same.

The courts below have met all possible arguments which could be raised by the petitioner against his conviction. It is a case where the sample was taken on 12.10.1981 and the analysis was conducted by Public Analyst on 15.10.1981 i.e. within three days of the food sampling. The argument that these insects may not be present at the time of the sample and might have come into existence after the seizure of the sample will not be tenable because the analysis was done within three days of the seizure of the sample. An egg normally takes 1 to 14 days to develop into an insect. Susris and Sundis are fully developed insects and 12 of them were found in the sample. So the argument that they might have come into existence after the seizure of the sample is not available to the petitioner. The wheat flour was supplied by the PUNSUP through Bhupinder Flour Mill, Bhatinda, for distribution to yellow card holders on subsidized rates. It appears that the wheat flour was not stored in proper conditions and as it was lying in an open bag, it had developed Susris and Sundis. The petitioner being salesman, it was for him to keep the wheat four in such a condition that it remains insect free.

The petitioner had not applied for sending second sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory in the trial Court so now it cannot be argued at this stage that the right of the appellant under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has in any way been infringed. There is no infirmity or illegality in the approach of the courts below. I do not find any justification to interfere in the findings arrived at by the courts below. This revision has no force. It is dismissed.