IMPORTANT POINT
No court of law can categorise a sample insect-infested unless it is also of the opinion that the sample is unfit for human consumption on that account.

JUDGMENT

V.P. Bhatnagar, J. - Criminal liability in case of insect damaged and for insect-infested articles of food under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 falls for determination in these revision petitions.

2. At the admission stage of criminal revision No. 7 of 1983, it was urged that sub clauses (1) and (m) take out the case of primary food from the purview of sub- clause (f) of clause (ia) of section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act; 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as held in State of Haryana v. Rama Nand1. The Court was then of the view that important questions of law being involved, the case be placed before a Division Bench. For similar reasons, criminal revision No. 75 of 1983 and criminal revision No. 160 of 1983 were ordered to be heard alongwith criminal revision No. 7 of 1983. We proceed to dispose of all the abovementioned three cases by this judgment.

3. The facts of three cases are as follows:

4. In criminal revision No. 7 of 1983, the Food Inspector collected sample of Kala Channa (black grams) from the shop/godown of Shri Bhagat Ram, petitioner, on October 24, 1980. The sample sent to the Public Analyst was analysed on October 27, 1980. The report of the Public Analyst at Ex. DE is that he is "of the opinion that the weevil led grains found on 27-10-80, 12% (by count) against the maximum prescribed limit of 10%". The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan and Sirmur districts at Nalagarh, in appeal, maintained the order of conviction but reduced the sentence to a period of 3 months and fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Criminal revision No. 7 of 1983 has arisen out of the aforesaid judgment.

5. Criminal revision No. 76 of 1983, is directed against the judgment dated July 20, 1983 of the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala whereby be dismissed the appeal preferred by Shri Raghunath Dass, petitioner before this Court, against his order of conviction under Section 16(1) (a) of the Act by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalhousie sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs; 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for another period of 6 months. The Food Inspector collected a sample of Kala Channa (black grams) from Shri Raghunath Dass's shop situate at Bakloh, district Chamba on June 26, 1980. The perusal of report Ex. PE shows that the macro and micro analysis done by the Public Analyst on June 29, 1980 detected 8 living insects in the sample. The Public Analyst was, therefore, of the opinion that the contents were unfit for human consumption.

6. The third case, viz., criminal revision No. 100 of 1983 pertains to a sample of Ajwain (Hishop's weed). The sample was collected by the Food Inspector on February 5, 1981 and its analysis was done on February 19, 1981. The Public Analyst, according to his report Ex. PF found the sample to the adulterated. The Public Analyst was of the opinion that ‘the contents of the sample contain 2.25% of inorganic extraneous matter against the maximum prescribed standard of 2.0% and further “55 dead insects are also contained in the sample which as such is unfit for human consumption". The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una convicted Shri Banarsi Dass, petitioner before this Court, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 3 months. The above order was maintained in entirety by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur at Una vide his impugned Judgment dated S