The court affirmed that the sale of food to a Food Inspector constitutes a defined 'sale' under the act, regardless of whether the food item is sold as such or used in preparation for another food product.

1. Hardev Singh son of Gulab Singh, respondent No. 1, was tried by Shri R.D. Aggarwal, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on a complaint filed by the petitioner under S.7 read with S.16 and S.17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 , (hereinafter called 'the Act') on the allegation that the sample of Atta*sold by him as vendor on behalf of M/s Punjabi Hotel, respondent No. 3, to Food Inspector, M.S. Chadha, on 5th November, 1974, was found to be adulterated due to presence of insect infestation. Respondent No. 2, Ranjeet Singh, was impleaded as an accused alleging that he was the working partner of M/s. Punjabi Hotel, respondent No. 3, supervising and managing the day - to - day working of the Hotel. As per allegations in the complaint, the Atta was exposed / meant for preparation of Chapatis being sold and intended for human consumption at the premises of respondent No. 3. The trial Court on evaluation of evidence, holding that the Atta was declared adulterated on account of presence of insects but it having not been proved that it was rendered unfit for human consumption and that before Chapaties were to be prepared, it was to be cleaned by sieving and further that the Atta from which the sample was lifted was not meant for sale as such, following the decision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheru Mal , (1975) 2 FAC 223 : 1978 CriLJ 336 (SC) by its impugned judgement dated 13th October, 1975, discharged the respondents.
* Wheat flour

2. The petitioner challenges the correctness of this view in the present revision petition. The revision petition came to be heard by one of us (Yogeshwar Dayal J.). The learned Judge repelling the contention sought to be urged on behalf of the respondents that "weevils are not insects" and that at any rate five weevils would not render the sample insect infested, by his order dated 12th September, 1978, held that 'weevil' is an 'insect' which is 'very injurious', and taking note of the fact that the minimum standard of purity prescribed for the Atta as per Rule A.18.01 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') framed under the Act, was of the view that on a prima facie appreciation of the facts of the case, the sample of Atta was 'insect infested'. The learned Judge noticing the testimony of the Public Analyst, Shri Bhatnagar, and Dr. N.K. Paul. Assistant Medical Officer of Health, took the view that the Atta, sample whereof was taken by the Food Inspector, was unfit for human consumption. He, however, in view of the other submission sought to be urged on behalf of the respondents that they were not dealers in Atta and that the Food Inspector was not entitled to draw the sample, did not express final opinion in the matter. The learned Judge further noticing that in some of the decisions relied upon before him, observations of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Laxmi Narain Tandon , AIR 1976 SC 821 : 1976 CriLJ 547 were not being correctly understood, in so far as those cases held that their Lordships in the above - cited case have overruled their earlier decision in Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation v. Charukattil Gopalan , 1972 FAC 9 : 1971 CriLJ 1277 (SC), felt that the matter was required to be dealt with by a larger Bench.

3. It may bear mention here that it was also contended before the learned single Judge that there was no evidence against respondents 2 and 3 and there