Skip to content


Ramji Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFood Adulteration
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Jail Revision No. 278 of 1976
Judge
Reported in1976WLN(UC)433
AppellantRamji Lal
RespondentState of Rajasthan
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....act, 1954 - sections 7 & 16--ghee docs not conform to prescribed standard--evidence of food inspector corroborated--defense witnesses not worthy of credence--held, no case made out for interference with conviction. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen..........on 2nd september, 1968, he was found selling ghee in mohalla phuti khail, alwar. shambhu dutt, food inspector, purchased a sample of ghee from the petitioner and divided the sample into three equal parts and filled each part in a dry clean bottle which was sealed and labeled properly in the presence of motbirs. the food inspector gave one bottle out of them to the petitioner, me was sent to the public analyst along with the sample of the seal for (ending his report and the thud was retained in the office of the municipal council, alwar. the public analyst sent a report that the sample of ghee was adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. the result of the analysis was declared by the public analyst as follows:1. butyro refracto meter reading at 40.c......
Judgment:

K.D. Sharma, J.

1. This is an application in revision filed by Ramji Lal convict against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar, dated 2nd June, 1976 by which the petitioner's conviction and sentence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was confirmed and maintained. The petitioner was tried and found guilty of the aforesaid effence by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar, on 8th February, 1975. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Alwar, awarded the minimum sentence of 6 month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/., to the petitioner and further ordered that in default of payment on tine the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months; Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal in the court of the Sessions Judge, Alwar, where-from it was transferred to the Additional Sessions judge No. 2, who dismissed it on 2nd June, 1976, as stated above.

2. The prosecution case against the petitioner was that on 2nd September, 1968, he was found selling Ghee in Mohalla Phuti Khail, Alwar. Shambhu Dutt, Food Inspector, purchased a sample of Ghee from the petitioner and divided the sample into three equal parts and filled each part in a dry clean bottle which was sealed and labeled properly in the presence of Motbirs. The Food Inspector gave one bottle out of them to the petitioner, me was sent to the Public Analyst along with the sample of the seal for (ending his report and the thud was retained in the office of the Municipal Council, Alwar. The Public Analyst sent a report that the sample of Ghee was adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. The result of the analysis was declared by the Public Analyst as follows:

1. Butyro refracto meter reading at 40.c. 48.7

2. Reichert value 13.0

3. Free falty acids as oleric acid 0.42%

4. Moisture 10.64%

5. (sic) oil test positive

6. Added colouring matter Nil.

Upon receiving the report of the Public Analyst the Food Inspector made a complaint against the petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Act in the court of the First Class Magistrate, Alwar. after obtaining requisite sanction for prosecution from the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Alwar, who was authorised by the Council to accord such sanctions Upon separation of the executive from the judiciary, the case came to the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him. His plea at the trial was that be had 11/2 Kilos of Ghee which was taken away from him by the Food Inspector without paying him any price therefore. The petitioner further pleaded that the bottles in which the Forts of the sample were filled were not sealed and that out of them one one bottle was not given to him. In short, the petitioner's plea was that his Ghee was, not adulterated and that he was deprived of it by the Food Inspector without being paid its price. The petitioner appeared in the witness box at his own request in writing and examined Hiralal, DW. 2, Badri Prasad, DW. 3, and Bhagwan Sabai DW. 4, in support of his plea. The prosecution examined Shambbu Dutt, Food Inspector and Ganga Singh, Motbir, to connect the accused with the crime.

3. I have carefully gone through the record, the memorandum of the revision petition and heard Dr S.S. Bhandawat, appearing on behalf of the State A notice of the date, time and place at which the revision petition shall be beard was given to the petitioner through the Superintendent, District Jail, Alwar. The notice was served on the petitioner but he did not appear before me.

4. D.S.S. Bhandawat appearing on behalf of the Slate contended before me that an offence under Section 7/16 of the Act has been fully made out against the petitioner and that he was rightly convicted and sentenced to undergo the minimum sentence by the trial court. The above contention is not devoid of force, Upon careful review of the entire evidence on the re-record, I am satisfied that on 2.9.1968 at 9.30 a m. Ramjilal petitioner was found selling Ghee in a moballa known as 'Pbuti Khali' at Alwar, by the. Food Inspector. The Food Inspector suspected the Ghee to be adulterated So he purchased 450 gms. of Ghee from the petitioner for Rs. 5.40 P and after dividing the scruple into three equal parts, filled such Dart in a bottle which wag properly sealed in the presence of Ganga Singh Motbir Out of the bottlef, one was sent by the Food Inspector to 'he Public Analyst, who analysed the sample of Dahi Gbee and found it adulterated The report of the Public Analyst is Ex. P. 3, It is evident from the report of the Public Analyst (Ex P. 3) that the richer value in the sample was highly deficient. It was 13.8% instead of 26 00%. In areas other than Jodhpur Division of the Rajasthan State minimum richer value is presented as 26%. The sample of Ghee even did not conform to the prescribed standard of (sic) refracto meter reading at 40 to 43%, The evidence of the Food Inspector is corroborated by the testimony of Ganga Singh in essential particulars. Ganga Singh also deposed that the petitioner was selling Ghee in Moballa Pbuti Khail at Alwar and that a sample of Ghee was purchased from him for value by the Food Inspector. Ganga Singh further stated that the sample was divided into three equal parts and each part was filled in a separate bottle, which was duly sealed in his presence. The petitioner did not cross-examine that witness. There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence, especially when it has not been shaken by cross-examination The Fond Inspector was no doubt cross-examined by the petitioner but nothing could be elicited from his cross-examination which may tend to destroy the value of his evidence or to impeach his credit. The courts below have commuted no error in relying upon the evidence of Shambhu Dutt, Food Inspector, and Ganga Singb Motbir for the purpose of convicting the petition, of the efface under Section 7/16 of the Act.

5. The petitioner in his statement en oath took a new plea by stating that be bad brought the Ghee from his village Baswa to the house of his relative Chuttan Lal at Phuti Khail and that his Ghee was forcibly taken by the Food Inspector. It will not be out of place to mention lost the petitioner did not set-up the above plea in his statement recorded no Her Section 342 (old) Cr. P.C This plea appears to be an after-thought. Consuls enough, the petitioner has Dot produced his relative Chuttan Lal to substantiate his plea Chuttan Lal would have been the best person to show that he asked the petitioner to being Deshi Ghee to his home for his consumption. The petitioner no doubt produced one Badri Prasad sons Bhonrey Lal who told a different tale. According to Badri Prasad, Remjti petitioner bed brought Ghee for him Similar is the evidence of Hara Lal, PW 2 who stated on oath that the petitioner did not deal in Ghee but was a vegetable seller and that he had brought Ghee for his us. Another witness Bhagwan Sahai produced by the petitioner merely deposed that be had seen the Food Inspector detaining the petitioner and that the sample was not purchased in his presence. The evidence led by the petitioner in his defence is unworthy of credence and it was rightly rejected by the courts below. Consequently, I do not find any substantial ground for interference with the findings of both the courts below as to the guilt of the petitioner.

6. As regards sentence, it may be observed that it is not severe in the circumstances of the case. The trial court has awarded the minimum sentence only prescribed under the law and that there are co mitigating circumstances justifying bunging down the sentence to less than the prescribed minimum, under Section 16(1) of the Act.

7. The revision-petition filed by the petitioner has no force and is hereby dismissed. The petitioner may be informed accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //