9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (8) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of powdered Dhania on payment of ₹ 1 50 P He put the samples in three phials in equal quantity and sealed them in the presence of the Motbirs and gave one phial to the accused along with Form No 6 and sent another to the Chemical Analyst, Jaipur, who found the sample to be adulterated with foreign matter as per his report Ex. P/5 Before the learned Magistrate the prosecution examined Sohanlal Motbir (PW/1) and Food Inspector Veersingh (PW/2) The accused admitted having sold the sample but he denied any adulteration by him and added that he sold it as he had purchased from Vijaynagar. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate found that the sale of Dhania stood proved and that it was adulterated with foreign matter and, therefore, he con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of fact and it should not be permitted to be agitated before this Court in the revisional jurisdiction. I have gone through the evidence of Veer Singh. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that on 5 8-67 he w0s appointed as Food Inspector in Anupgarh and he had pouters under the Act upto 30th March, 70. In cross-examination he has stated that he had taken charge from Mr. J.N. Mathur as Food Inspector of Vijayanagir area. The applicant neither in his own statement nor in his cross examination challenged the statement made on oath by Veer Singh notwithstanding the fact that he had three opportunities to cross-examine him on 7-10-68; 3.2.69 and 25 3 69. There is no reason to disbelieve the Food Inspector's statement made on oath. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rchased. 4. According to Rule 22 the quantity of sample to be sent to the public analyst is specified. The argument of the learned Counsel is that the quantity of spices under Item 17 to be sent to the public analyst is 150 grams, where as the Food Inspector having purchased only 375 grams of Dhania and divided it into 3 equal points, he must have sent 125 grams of it as against 150 grams to the Public Analyst. Thus Rule 22 is violated. In my opinion' the argument has no force. The reason is that in table below Rule 22. column 3 the words employed are Approximate quantity to be supplied . Thus a few grams, more or less is permitted to be supplied to the Public Analyst. Assuming for the sake of argument that 375 grams was precisely d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e time when such action is taken and take his or their signatures. The Inspector had taken two Motbir witnesses when he took the sample. He had examined the peon. The peon is certainly under the District Medical and Health Officer but that does not mean that he would speak a lie on that account. In point of fact taking of sample has never been disputed by the accused and it is futile to invoke the aid of Section 10(7) for the purpose of assailing his conviction. Section 10 Sub-section (7) 6peaks of calling one or more persons to be present at the time when action is taken and take his or their signatures. The Food Inspector had called 2 persons. He has examined one of them. I can quite appreciate his resistance in examining the other man, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent to the prosecution of Shri Gori Shanker s/o Shri Lalchand Arora resident of Anupgarh in the court of law for the offence made under the Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. .. . . Learned Counsel assails this consent, firstly, on the ground that there was no offence committed under Section 20 of the Act and, therefore, it is no consent in the eye of law. The syntax is indeed not happy. What it means in substance is that the Chairman gave written consent under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for the prosecution of Gorishanker for the offence committed by him under that Act. The learned Counsel added that it shows that mind was net applied by the Chairman. The object of Section 20 is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ian Singh v. Municipal Board, Saharanpur and Anr. In para 6 their Lordships have observed: Under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, no question of applying one's mind to the facts of the case before the institution of the complaint arises as the authority to be conferred under that provision can be conferred long before a particular offence has taken place. It is a conferment of an authority to institute a particular case or even a class of cases. That section merely prescribes that persons or authorities designated in that section are alone competent to file complaints under the statute in question. It is not necessary in view of the Supreme Court's authoritative pronouncement to discuss Municipal He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
