State of Punjab vs Prem Pal

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

On 30.5.1982 Dr. Karnail Singh, Food Inspector took a sample of Maida from Prem Paul accusedrespondent from his Karyana shop in village Anr. The sample was of 600 grams of Maida and it was purchased for Rs. 1.50 paise vide receipt Ex. PC in the presence of Sat Pal PW. It was drawn from a gunny beg containing 10 kilogram of Maida. The purchased Maida was divided into three equal parts and was sealed in three dry and clean bottles. One sealed bottle was sent to the Public analayst for analysis and the other two bottles were deposited with the Local Health Authority. The Public analyst made his report Ex. PD wherein he opined that the contents of sample contained eight living insects and as such it was adulterated. On these facts the Food Inspector filed a complaint for prosecution of the respondent in respect of the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 or the Food Adulteration Act. The accused respondent was tried for this offence by Shri S.K. Chopra, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. Vide judgment dated 19.7.1984 he was held not guilty and was acquitted of the charge, hence this appeal was filed by the State of Punjab assailing the judgment recording acquittal the respondent.

We have heard Shri S.K. Sharma, the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant, Shri D.S. Sawhney, advocate with Mr. G.S. Sawhney, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent and have perused the records. We are of the opinion that the acquittal of the respondent has been rightly recorded by the learned trial Court.

Dr. Karnail Singh who had taken the sample was examined as PW 1. He admitted in his crossexamination that when he purchased the Maida for sample there was nothing wrong with it and he did not observe any insect present therein. He also admitted that the Public Analyst in his report had not mentioned that the sample tested by him was unfit for human consumption. The Public Analyst has not been examined in this case to prove that Maida was unfit for human consumption. The respondent could not be held liable if the article from which sample was seized was not in any way infested with insects or from any other impurity affecting the health of individuals. Case of Inder Bhan v. State of Punjab, 1984(2) Recent CR 362 : 1984(1) P. of Food Adulteration Cases 288 was similar to the present case. In this case the Food Inspector took sample of Mithi Saunf and he deposed that at the time of taking sample he did not see any insect living or dead in the article. It was held that in this view of the matter the possibility cannot be ruled out that the insects might have been developed in the sample after the same was purchased by the Food Inspector and the accused was acquitted on that ground.

In the instant case there is also nothing on record to show that Maida in question was unfit for human consumption. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo Mal, A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court 391 where cashewnuts were found infested with insects it was observed that the phrase or is'' otherwise unfit for human consumption'' in Section 2(i) (f) has to be read conjunctively and not disjunctively.. The adjectives ''filthy'', ''putrid'', ''disgusting'', ''decomposed'', ''rotton'', ......''insectinfested'' refer to the quality of the article and furnish the indicia for presuming the article to be unfit for human consumption. But the presumption may not be conclusive in all cases, irrespective of the character of the article, and the nature and extent of the vice afflicting it. This is particularly so, where an article is found to be ''insect infested.'' In view of the above mentioned authority it is evident that the mere insect infestation is not sufficient to hold the article as adulterated Further proof that the article was unfit for human consumption is a must and the opinion of Public Analyst who examines and analyses the sample as to the fitness or otherwise of the sample for human consumption would constitute legal evidence, which is completely lacking in the present case. For these reasons the learned trial Court gave benefit of doubt to the accusedrespondent and rightly acquitted him. The findings to that effect are, therefore, affirmed.

For the foregoing reasons we don''t find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same.