KAILASH PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) ONE Narain Das was found in possession of some tins of adulterated Ghee. He was prosecuted under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He pleaded in defence that the Ghee was not kept for sale by him, but was with him only as security for the money which he had advanced to a Hathras firm styled Basant Lal Hukam Chand. The learned Magistrate, who tried the case did not accept the defence and convicted Narain Das under Section 16 (1) (a) of the act and sentenced him to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. His conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal by the Temporary Sessions Judge of Mathura. Narain Das came in revision to this Court. The revision was heard by a learned Single Judge. He accepted the plea of the accused that the Ghee which was stored by him was not for sale but was kept with him as security for money which he had advanced.

( 2 ) THE question, therefore, arose whether Narain Das can be held guilty of an offence under section 16 of the Prevention of Adulteration Act if the storing of the Ghee by him was not for sale but was merely for security.

( 3 ) CERTAIN cases were cited before the learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document