V.P. Tyagi, J.
1. Municipal Council, Jaipur has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 13th November 1969, acquitting both Tarachand and Gulabchand of an affiance under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act).
2. The respondents were carrying on business of wholesale dealer in Ghee. On 17th April, 1864 Shri T.N. Saxena, Food Inspector, Jaipur suspected 10 tins of Ghee which were on the shop of the respondents for sale, as adulterated and, therefore, those tins were kept in a godown and the godown was sealed. On 21st of April, 1964, specimen samples of Ghee were purchased by the said Inspector from respondent Tara Chand and they were sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The report of the Public Analyst shows that they were not in conformity with the prescribed standard of purity. Both the respondents were, therefore, challaned in the court of the Municipal Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, from where, after trial, both the accused persons were found guilty for an offence under Section 7/16 of the Act and each one of them was awarded 1 year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. On appeal, the learned Judge acquired Gulab Chand on the ground that he was no doubt a partner of the firm carrying on the business in the name and style Messrs. Ramsukh Chunilal on which both the accused were partners, but Gulab Chand was neither on the shop on the day the tins were seized by the Food Inspector, nor was he a party for the sale of the sample to the Food Inspector and, therefore, in view of the clear provision of Section 17 of the Act. be could not be held guilty as the learned judge did not find consent or connivance of Gulab Chand for the sale of the adulterated Ghee, nor could any neglect on his part be attributed to him. As regards Tarachand, the learned appellate court held that the prosecution could not prove whether the Public Analyst while examining the sample sent to him tallied the seal on the sample with the specimen that was sent to him by the Food Inspector. While passing that order reliance was placed by the learned Judge on an unreported judgment of this Court in Ambalal v. State S.B. Criminal Revision No. 61 of 1937 decided on 6-12-1967. Having fet aggrieved by this judgment, the Municipal Council has come before this Court in appeal.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not point out any infirmity in the judgment of the appellate court so far as it relates to the acquittal of Gulabchand. In view of the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, no liability could be fastened on Gulab Chand specially when the prosecution has failed to prove that the adulterated Ghee was sold by firm with his consent or connivance or that he was negligent in the discharge of his duties as a partner of that firm. We feel that the judgment of the learned appellate Judge so far as it relates to Gulab Chand does not suffer from any infirmity.
4. As regards the case of Tarachand, it was urged by learned Counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has complied with the provisions of Rules 7, 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. It is clear from the record that a copy of the memorandum which was affixed en the container of samples was separately sent to the Public Analyst with an impression of the specimen seal used by the Food Inspector while sealing the samples after purchasing Ghee from Tarachand. The report of the Public Analyst shows that he had examined the seal and from the observations made by him it is clear 'hat the seal was found in fact. From these observations made by the Food Inspector in his report, it can safely be inferred that he must have tallied the seal on the container of the sample with the specimen Impression affixed on the memorandum which was sent to him separately. The learned Judge has taken too technical a view on this point, specially when the Supreme Court in Kassim Kunju Pookunju and Anr. v. K.K Ramakrishna Pillai and Anr. 1969 CAR 15 (SC) (sic) has held that it should be presumed that the Public Analyst while observing that the seal was found in tact acted in accordance with the rules and he must have compared the specimen impression received by him with the seal on the container. This presumption obviates the necessity for making a subsequent writing in the report the the Public Analyst bad compared the specimen impression with the seal affixed on the container In this case, the Public Analyst has clearly mentioned in his report that he found the seal unbroken and intact which clearly means that he must have compared the specimen impression of the seal on the copy of the memo with the seal which was affixed on the container. The judgment of the learned appellate Judge, therefore, cannot be sustained.
5. We, therefore, partly allow the appeal of Municipal Council so far as it relates to Tarachand.
6. The sample of Ghee was purchased by the Food Inspector in the year 1964 Eleven years have passed since and the respondent for this long period ad to face harassment of criminal litigation. We, therefore, consider that it will not be in the interest of justice to send him to jail after such a long time especially when we find that the law then in vogue prescribed either the imprisonment or fine. In view of these circumstances, while upholding the conviction of Tarachand as ordered by the learned Magistrate under Section 7/16 of the Act, we feel that the ends of justice will be meet if a fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed by the learned Magistrate is increased to Rs. 2,000/-.
7. Tarachand is present in Courts He prays that a month's time be allowed to him to deposit the fine. Time is allowed. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.