Sant Singh vs State of Haryana

S.S. Dewan, J.—In this criminal revision, Sant Singh petitioner assails his conviction and sentence under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short the Act). Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, sentenced him to one year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, upheld his conviction but reduced his sentence to the minimum i.e. six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/. Hence the revision.

The case of the prosecution was that on September 24, 1980, the petitioner was found in possession of 3 kgs of turmeric powder in his shop for sale. Suspecting the turmeric powder to be adulterated, Piare Lal Government Food Inspector took sample of the same for analysis after observing all the formalities. He sent a sample to the Public Analyst for analysis who reported that the sample contained five dead weevils and two living weevils and as such it was unfit for human consumption.

At the out set, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that there was non compliance of rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, the Rules) and the said rule is in these terms:

"The public analyst shall, within a period of fortyfive days from the date of receipt of any sample for analysis, deliver to the Local Authority a report of the result of such analysis in Form III."

Mr. C.B. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner, has further stated that the sample of turmeric powder was taken by the Food Inspector on September 24, 1980 and the same was received in the office of the Public Analyst for analysis on September 29. 1980. The sample was analysed by the Public Analyst on September 30, 1980. According to the learned counsel, the report of the Public Analyst was received by the Food Inspector sometime in the month of December, 1980 i.e. after fortyfive days. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Madras High Court in State Public Prosecutor v. Meenakshi Achi 1973 F.A.C. 43 in support of his submission that rule 7(3) of the Rules is mandatory in every sense. It was observed by the learned Judges of that Court that in no event and under no circumstances, the full rigour of rule 7 of the Rules could be permitted to be relaxed, otherwise this would even result in the effective deprivation of the valuable right under section 13(2) of the Act conferred on the accused by the Parliament. Having regard to the illegality committed by the Public Analyst by not complying with the mandatory rule 7(3) of the Rules, the petitioner is certainly entitled to take benefit of this violation.

It was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is nothing unlikely, in the article of food purchased having been got infested with insects after it was purchased and prior to its analysis by the Public Analyst. Turmeric powder was purchased on September 24, 1980, while the sample was analysed by the Public Analyst after six days i.e. September 30, 1980. The sample was taken in the months of September. In Haryana this month falls in rainy season. The atmosphere is full of humidity during the rainy season. With the presence of the humidity in the atmosphere, the bottle in which the sample was taken must have contained certain amount of moisture. In rainy season, articles of food when remain lying for good many days, get infested with small insects. The sample remained unexamined for about six days. There is nothing unlikely the sample having been infested with insects during the period. The Food Inspector has admitted that at the time he purchased the sample it was not infested with insects. This admission by the Food Inspector reinforces the argument of the learned counsel that the sample got infested with the insects later on and was not infested at the time when it was purchased. In that eventuality, the petitioner could not be held guilty of selling an adulterated article of food infested with insects.

For the reasons recorded above, this revision is allowed conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him.