Onus to prove lies on the accused.

This revision is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under sections 7(f) and 16(i)(a)(i) read with section 2(1a)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and of a fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed thereunder by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur, in C.C.No.1045 of 1980 in his file.

2. On 22.4.1980 at about 11.00 a.m., P.W.1, the Food Inspector, purchased about 600 grams of chilly powder from Janata Stores, the shop of the revision petitioner, at Bazaar Street, Perambalur. After observing all the formalities, he divided the chilly powder purchased in three equal parts and sealed them in three polythene bags and sent one to the Public Analyst and the other two to the Local (Health) Authority. The report of the Analyst revealed that the sample contained ash absolute in dilute Hydrochloric Acid in excess of the maximum permitted limit to the extent of 169 per cent. On the basis of this report, a complaint was laid. The trial Court found that the sample was adulterated within the meaning of section 2 of the Act, and convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner as stated above. In appeal, the conviction and the sentence were confirmed. The revision petitioner challenges the conviction and the sentence imposed, in this revision.

3. Mr. N.T.Vanamamalai, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, pointed out that chilly powder, being primary food, fall in standard is due to natural causes beyond the control of human agency and therefore the article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of section 2 of the Act. Under Article 2(1a)(m) an article shall be deemed to be adulterated if the quality or purity of the articles, being primary food, falls below the prescribed standards or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits or variability but which does not render it injurious to health. The proviso to that sections runs thus:

“Provided that, where the quality or purity of the article, being primary food, has fallen below the prescribed standards or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability, in either case, solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency, then, such article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this sub-clause.”

The standards of quality laid down for chilly powder are as follows:

Crude fibre … Not more than 30.0 per cent by weight.

4. The sample in question contained total ash to the extent of 8.37 per cent. ash insoluble in dilute Hydrochloric acid. 3.5 per cent, non-volatile either extract 17.3 per cent and moisture to extent of 1.0 per cent. The prosecution has to show that this article of food is adulterated as defined in any of the sub-clauses of section 2(1a) of the Act and in my view it has succeeded in showing that the article is adulterated within the meaning of sub-clause (m) of section 2(1a) of the Act.

5. Mr. N.T.Vanamamalai, learned Counsel for the petitioner strongly relied on the proviso to section 2(1a)(m) and contended that the fall in the standards was due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency and therefore the article is not adulterated within the meaning of that section. Learned Counsel relied upon the ruling in H.V.Bavenna v. State of Kerala H.V.Bavenna v. State of Kerala (1985) F.A.J. 293. That was a case of adulteration of milk. It was found that there was deficiency of solids-not-fat by 2.4 per cent from the prescribed minimum. Relying upon this ruling, learned Counsel pointed out that the prosecution is expected to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by adducing evidence and the accused is not expected to prove his case beyond doubt and it is enough if he establishes preponderance of probability for that purpose. That is a well-known proposition with wh