The sale of adulterated Gur is not an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, if the Gur is meant for use as food for animals and not for human consumption.

1. - This is an appeal filed by the State against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Merta, dated 11-8-1976 in criminal appeal No. 125/74 by which the appeal of Gulab Chand against his conviction and sentence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, was accepted and he was acquitted of the aforesaid offence on the ground that the prosecution could not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It will not be out of place to mention that Gulabchand Respondent was found guilty of selling adulterated Gur at his shop on 15-6-1978 by Sitaram Food Inspector who thereupon purchased a sample of the Gur for value from the Respondent, and after dividing it into three equal parts put each part in a dry and clean bottle which was properly sealed by him on the spot in the presence of Laxminarain and Gheesulal Morvis. One of the sealed bottles was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst analysed the sample and sent a report to the Food Inspector that the sample of Gur sent to him was adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. The report of the Public Analyst is Lx. P. 3 on the record and the result of the analysis made by him is as follows:-

and am of the opinion that this sample of Gur is adulterated as it does not conform to the prescribed standard of purity."

2. Upon perusal of the report of the Public Analyst the Food Inspector obtained requisite sanction to prosecute the respondent under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act from the competent authority and thereafter filed a complaint against the Respondent in the court of Munsil Magistrate Merta. The learned Magistrate tried the respondent on the complaint of the Food Inspector and came to a conclusion upon evidence adduced in the case that the Respondent was guilty of selling adulterated Gur. The learned Magistrate accordingly convicted and sentenced the Respondent to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one and a half month. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the Respondent preferred an appeal to the court of Sessions Judge, Merta. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties was of the view that the Respondent was not guilty of the offence punishable under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act because the prosecution could not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Gur out of which the sample was taken by the Food Inspector was for use as food for human consumption and also on the ground that the Food 'Inspector did not send a copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the bottles to the Public Analyst separately either by registered post or through any person authorised by him and so it could not be said that the Public Analyst analysed the same sample of Gur which was taken by the Food Inspector from the shop of the Respondent. As against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Merta, the State has come up in appeal to this Court.

3. We have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. M.D. Purohit learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. P.C. Mathur learned counsel for the respondent.

4. From a bare perusal of the statement of Laxmi Narain Motbir P,W. 1 it is evident that the Gur of which the sample was taken by the Food Inspector from the shop of the Respondent was known as "Raskat" Gur which was not meant or used for human consumption but,