Judgement

M. H. BEG, J.: The appellant was charged in the Court of Presidency Magistrate of Bombay as follows:

"That you on 3-12-1968 at 8 a.m. at Bandra, in contravention of provisions of Sections 2 (1) (f) and 7 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, sold 450 grams of Til seeds to the Food Inspector and that the Til seeds were unfit for human consumption, and thereby committed an offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the same Act and within my cognizance".

2. The two witnesses produced to support, this charge were D. P. Tambe and S. P. Gaydhani.

3. D. P. Tambe, (P.W. 1), a businessman, said that he had gone to "a shop to make purchases", without giving either the name of the shop or approximate date or time of his visit. Under cross-examination, he said that he did not know whether it was a foodgrain shop. He said that he saw the complainant pick up a jar, open it, and look at its contents. He deposed that there was "some talk" between the complainant and the accused. The complainant was then said to have come up to and told this witness that he would be taking "some commodity from the jar" which would be sent for analysis. After that, the complainant, it was alleged, asked for some Til seeds. Thereupon, according to this witness, "some persons in the shop found Til seeds in three plastic bags and gave the bags to the Inspector." He said that the Inspector (i. e. the complainant) sealed the packets and that the witness signed the packets. He deposed: "Cash Memo was prepared by some persons in the shop. Inspector paid money to accused No. 1 ............Accused No. 1 was with the Inspector all the while". His cross-examination showed that he could remember nothing material. He did not even remember who made the cash memo and whether anyone signed it in his presence. He said he only thinks that he signed it. To almost every question under cross-examination his answer was that he does not remember. Even after making every possible allowance for a memory which could fade with lapse of time, his version was extraordinarily nebulous and non-committal.

4. The principal witness in the case was S. P. Gaydhani, P.W. 2, the prosecuting Food Inspector, who stated that, after having gone into the grocery shop at 731 Hill Road, Bandra, he disclosed his identity to the accused and demanded 450 grams of Til seeds for which he paid Rupees 1.35. He said that he himself divided this quantity into 3 parts each of which was put into a separate plastic bag and then sealed and labelled by him. He claimed to have obtained the signatures of the accused in the presence of Tambe whom he described as "the independent witness Tambe". Under cross-examination, he said that he took the signatures of Tambe on the cash memo but not on the packets, although he had deposed in his examination-in chief that Tambe had signed the sealed packets also. Incidentally, the seals of the packets were found broken due to what the Inspector described as "handling". He admitted that no signature of the witness was obtained on the counterfoil of the cash memo. He stated: "Black Tils can be used for human consumption. It is not correct to say they are used only for Pooja. It is not true that the accused told me that he had only black Tils used for Pooja. It is not true that the accused told me that he will write on the cash memo the purpose for which black Tils are sold."

5. The accused appellant denied the presence of Tambe and asserted that he had clearly told the Food Inspector that the black Tils in his shop were only meant for Pooja and not for human consumption. Apparently, as the Inspector wanted to buy these Til seeds despite this information given to him, the accused sold them to him and signed the necessary papers. The accused produced no witness in defence.

6. The real dispute on facts revolves round the question whether the black Tils were sold to the Food Inspector specifically for the purpose of Pooja after the accused had told him that they were not meant f