JUDGMENT

P.S. Safeer, J. This petition No. 128 arises out of trial of case no. 721/3 of 1970. It is connected with Cr.R. 129 of 1972. Petitioners in the two are Sunder Lal and Nand Lal & Co.

2. This judgment will dispose of both. Sunder Lal was functioning at 918, Gali Chah Sharin, Farash Khana when he was approached by Food Inspector B. R. Kochar on the 23rd of September, 1970, who after disclosing his identity expressed that he wanted to purchase a sample of compounded hing. The Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of compounded hing on payment of Rs. 6.00 Exhibit P.A., the receipt, pertained to the said purchase. On being analysed, the compounded hing was found adulterated. On receiving the report of the Public Analyst Exhibit P. E. a complaint was filed under section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereafter called "the Act").

The adulteration found was :-

"...The same is adulterated due to 0.79 excess in total ash per cent and 0.04 excess in ash insoluble in dilute hydrochloric acid percent."

3. The petitioners were prosecuted and convicted under section 16 of the Act. The trial court, in respect of the purchase made by Food Inspector B.R. Kochar, after convicting the accused under section 16 ordered Sunder Lal to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 in default of payment whereof he was to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Messrs Nand Lal and Company was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00.

4. In case of the second purchase made by Food Inspector N.M. Oberoi at 1.45 p.m. on the same date of the same quantity and of the same food stuff for payment of the same price, the petitioners were convicted under section 16 of the Act. Sunder Lal was sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months and the firm was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.

5. Various contentions were raised before the courts below and the same have been emphatically urged before me. It was contended before the courts below that the commodity was not meant for human consumption and that Sunder Lal made it clear at the time he was asked to sell, the commodity that he was not having any compounded hing which he could sell for human consumption. It has been also emphasised that there were certain boards displayed at the premises which clarified that the commodity was not being sold for human consumption. It has been then contended that the Food Inspector should have resorted to the quartering system while making the purchase of the commodity.

6. The evidence has been read over and over again in order to make out a case that because of the failure to conform to the quartering system the samples could not have been the basis of a true analysis for the purpose of finding out adulteration. At the very end of the arguments the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the adulteration found in respect of the first purchase in terms of Exhibit P.E. was very marginal and the adulteration found in respect of the second purchase by Food Inspector N.M. Oberoi was also such which could occur due to the peculiar food stuff which is used as the basis for the preparation of compounded hing.

7. The ultimate contention has persuaded me to keep all other arguments apart and for examining it I have gone through Rule A.04 contained in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and the counsel appearing for the Corporation has given me valuable assistance while explaining its scope. The Rule is :-(...)

8. The opening terms in the rule describe hing or hingra as being the same thing. The specifications pertaining to them are, however, different. The adulteration found in the case of the purchase by Food Inspector B. K. Kochar has already been reproduced above. The adulteration as described in exhibit P.E. in respect of the commodity purchased b