1987 Supreme(Raj) 419
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
N.C.Sharma, J.
Mohd. Umar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Revision No. 179 of 1982.
Decided On : 13-01-1987
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:A.K. Bhandari, Advocate.
For the Respondent: S.C. Sharma, P.P.
The sale of adulterated groundnut oil is an offence under Section 17 read with Section 16 of the Rajasthan Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the burden is not on the prosecution to prove that the article is ordinarily used for human consumption as food.
Headnote:
FOOD ADULTERATION - SALE OF ADULTERATED GROUNDNUT OIL - CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 17 READ WITH SECTION 16 OF THE RAJASTHAN PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 - VALIDITY - EVIDENCE OF FOOD INSPECTOR - RELIABILITY - BURDEN OF PROOF - ARTICLE USED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a grocery and edible oil dealer, was convicted under Section 17 read with Section 16 of the Rajasthan Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling adulterated groundnut oil to a Food Inspector. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the oil was not meant for sale and that the Food Inspector had taken the sample from a tub containing waste oil, not from the container containing the groundnut oil. The petitioner also argued that the burden was on the prosecution to prove that the article was ordinarily used for human consumption as food.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had sold the adulterated groundnut oil to the Food Inspector and that the oil was meant for human consumption. The court held that the evidence of the Food Inspector was reliable and that the petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption of correctness of the proceedings before the trial court. The court also held that the burden was not on the prosecution to prove that the article was ordinarily used for human consumption as food, as it was well-established that groundnut oil is an article of food.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had sold adulterated groundnut oil to the Food Inspector. 2. Whether the oil was meant for human consumption. 3. Whether the burden was on the prosecution to prove that the article was ordinarily used for human consumption as food.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence of the Food Inspector was reliable and that the petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption of correctness of the proceedings before the trial court. The court also held that the petitioner had sold the adulterated groundnut oil to the Food Inspector and that the oil was meant for human consumption. 2. The court held that groundnut oil is an article of food and that the burden was not on the prosecution to prove that the article was ordinarily used for human consumption as food.
Final Decision: The court partly accepted the revision petition, reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period during which the petitioner had already been in jail, but maintaining the fine imposed on the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
1. - This is a revision by Mohammad Umar against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Baran dated August 9, 1982 passed in criminal appeal No. 164 of 1981 of his Court whereby the said Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence dated September 1, 1981 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Baran in criminal case No. 274 of 1977 convicting the petitioner under Section 17 read with Section 16 of the Rajasthan Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short here in after the 'Act') and sentenced him to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of L 1000/ and in default of the amount of fine to further undergo one month's imprisonment.
2. Facts leading to the filing of this revision are that the petitioner Mohammad Umar carries on the business in grocery and edible oil in Talab Pada Baram. On November 28, 1975 Amarlal, Food Inspector Baran went to the shop of the petitioner, found that the petitioner was selling edible oil and species. He suspected that the ground-nut oil at the shop of the petitioner was adulterated. He, therefore, gave a notice in form VI to the petitioner and his intention to purchase 375 gramc of ground-nut oil from the petitioner. Ex. P 1 is the notice in form VI. The Food Inspector purchased the said quantity of ground-nut oil on payment of L 2.62 to the petitioner under cash receipt Ex. P 2. He divided the sample in three parts and filled the divided parts in three clean and dried bottles labelled and sealed them according to statutory requirements and gave one bottle of the sample to the petitioner and sent the other to the Public Analyst Kota. Along with the sample the Food Inspector also sent a memorandum (copy whereof is Ex. P. 4) together with the specimen impression of the seal separately. Ex. P 5 is the receipt of the Public Analyst bout his receiving one sealed sample No. A/82/75 with form No. VII by hand on December 3, 1975. The Public Analyst found that the sample was properly sealed and fastened and that the seal was intact and unbroken. He also noted that the seal fixed on the container of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector and that the sample was in a condition fit for analysis. The Public Analyst Kota sent his report of analysis on December 31, 1975 and he was of the opinion that the sample of ground-nut oil did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity and was adulterated within the meaning assigned to the expression by Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. The Food Inspector after obtaining sanction from the Administrator, Municipality Baran filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner on May 1, 1976 in the court of the Judicial Magistrate Baran. The Judicial Magistrate after holding trial found the petitioner guilty and by his judgment dated September 1, 1981, sentenced the petitioner as aforesaid. The petitioner filed an appeal No. 164 of 1988 before the court of Sessions which was transferred to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Baran. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on August 9, 1982. The petitioner has come in revision before this Court.
3. It was strenuously contended by Mr. A.K. Bhandari appearing for the petitioner that the courts below have ignored the evidence of Gajendra Singh PW 2 who has clearly admitted in his statement that the oil of which the sample was taken by the Food Inspector had leaked from all tins and the petitioner had also told to the Food Inspector that the oil in the tub was not for sate and had requested the Food Inspector to take the sample from the oil contained in the tins. How ever, the Inspector mala fide took the oil from the tub inspite of the protest from the petitioner. Thus it was contended that there was no sale but it was in fact seizure or compulsorily requisitioning of this food stuff. It was also argued that the petitioner had not stored the oil for sale because it was a waste oil in the tub
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
