Tilak Raj vs The State

P.C. Pandit, J.—Tilak Raj, a sweet-meat seller of Majitha, district Amritsar, has been convicted u/s 7 read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced to three months'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. Against his conviction, he has filed the present revision petition.

On 8th of January, 1966 at about 12.45 P. M., P. W. 1 Krishan Chand Sharma, Government Food Inspector, Amritsar, alongwith his peon, Mota Singh, went to the shop of the petitioner at Majitha. There he found four kilos of Amartis (a kind of sweet meat) lying at his shop for sale to the public. After giving the required notice in Form VI to the petitioner, P. W. 1 purchased 1500 grams of Amartis from him on payment of Rs. 5/25 as a sample. These Amartis were then divided into three parts and put into separate tins which were duly sealed on the spot. One tin was handed over to the petitioner, the other sent to the Public Analyst in Chandigarh, while the third was deposited in the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Amritsar. The Public Analyst sent his report, Exhibit P D, in which it was mentioned that the sample was coloured with a prohibited yellow coal-tar dye and as such it was not fit for human use. After the receipt of this report, P. W. 1, filed a complaint u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, against the petitioner.

In his statement u/s 342, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner submitted that the case had been started against him by Tek Chand, another Halwai who had his shop near that of the petitioner, in collusion with P. W. 1. The Amartis were lying at the shop of Tek Chand and the petitioner was made to sign some papers under pressure brought by P. W. 1 and Dr. Mehar Singh, P. W. 2.

Both the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar have rejected the defence version and convicted the petitioner as mentioned above.

After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, I find that there is no merit in this revision petition. The sample of the amartis was taken from the shop of the petitioner in the presence of the Government Food Inspector P.W. 1, his peon Mota Singh and Dr. Mebar Singh P.W. 2. Mota Singh was not produced, because he had died in the meantime, P. W. 2 did not support the version of the Government Food Inspector and, according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he seemed to have been won over by the petitioner. There was then the evidence of P.W. 1 which had been believed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. No reason has been shown as to why his evidence should be discarded. Both the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge were right in holding that the sample of amartis was taken from the shop of the petitioner. It had been found by the Public Analyst that the sample was coloured with a prohibited yellow that coal-tar dye and as such the amartis were not fit for human use. That being so, the petitioner was rightly convicted u/s 7 read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954.

According to section 16, if any person manufactures for sale or sells any article of Food which is adulterated or misbranded or the sale of which is prohibited by the Food (Health) authority in the interest of public health, he would, in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of section 6, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees. The petitioner''s case, was therefore, fully covered by section 16(1)(a)(i), inasmuch as the amartis that he was selling were adulterated within the meaning of section 2(1)(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, because they were coloured with a dye which was not prescribed under Rule 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The result was that the amartis had become unfit for human use, as reported by the Public Analyst.

As regards the sentence, the same also does not call for any interference, because the minimum prescribed for the offence was six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The petitioner has already been given less than the minimum fixed.

The result is that this petition fails and is dismissed.