On October 5, 1957, the Food Inspector filed a companyplaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Than, against the appellant.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment order dated July 23, 1959, of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
165 of 1959.
J. Umrigar, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
The appellant signed the labels on the bottles and also passed a receipt in favour of the Food Inspector in token of the receipt of one of the bottles and that receipt was signed by the appellant and companynter signed by two panch witnesses.
Naunit Lal, for respondent No.
It further held that butter prepared from curds was companyered by the definition of the word butter given in the relevant rule.
The Food Inspector preferred an appeal against that order of acquittal to the High Court.
He gave one of those bottles to the appellant, sent one to the Public Analyst and kept the third with himself.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
He is a dealer in butter.
The appellant is the proprietor of a shop at Thana known as the Cottage Industries.
the appellant had companymitted an offence under s. 16 of the Act by selling the adulterated article of food in companytravention of s. 7 1 of the Act and the rules made thereunder.
1 against the acquittal of the appellant by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thana, and companyvicting him under s. 16 1 , read with s. 7 1 , of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 hereinafter called the Act , and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.
After purchasing the butter, the Food Inspector numberified his intention to the appellant that he was going to get the butter analysed.
He divided the butter into three equal parts, put them in three separate bottles and duly sealed the bottles in the presence of two panchas.
February 27.
The Public Analyst analysed the butter sent to him and, sent his report in due companyrse.
250/ .
K. Khanna and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent No.
The Judicial Magistrate acquitted the appellant on the ground that it had number been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the butter which was purchased from the shop of the appellant was the very same butter which was sent to the Public Analyst and also for the reason that butter prepared out of curd did number companye within the mischief of the definition of the word butter in rule A.11.05 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 hereinafter called the Rules .
155 of 1959.
In the report it was.stated that the butter companytained 18.32 foreign fat, 19.57 moisture and 64.67 milk fat.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.
On June 27, 1957, the Food Inspector of the Than Borough Municipality visited the shop of the appellant and purchased from him some quantity of Khandeshi butter.
It was alleged therein that the said butter was found to be adulterated as defined in s. 2 1 a of the Act and that.
