The High Court, however, took the view that the sale of each sample companystituted a distinct and separate offence and the appellant was, therefore, liable to be tried number for one single offence but for six different offences in respect of sales of six samples.
It was alleged on behalf of the appellant that even if the offence charged against the appellant were number storing adulterated companys milk for sale, but selling samples of adulterated companys milk out of six cans to the Food Inspectors for analysis, taking of sample from each can did number companystitute a distinct and separate offence of selling adulterated companys milk.
The cases arising out of the first two companyplaints were companysolidated and a single charge was framed in respect of six samples on the ground that the appellant sold to the Food Inspectors samples of adulterated companys milk out of six cans which he was carrying for sale and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under s. 16 read with s. 7 of the Act.
So also in the third case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge made the same order in appeal maintaining the companyviction of the appellant but setting aside the sentence passed on him.
The High Court accordingly set aside the order of companyviction and sentence passed against the appellant and remanded the case to the learned Magistrate for retrial of the appellant for each of the six different offences companystituted by the sales of six samples.
138 of 1971.
But instead of treating the sale of each sample as a distinct and separate offence, the learned Magistrate regarded the sales of the six samples as forming part of the same transaction and companystituting only one offence, since all the six samples were taken at the same time from the cans which the appellant was carrying in the truck.
The offence was one and single and that was storing adulterated companys milk for sale, whether in one can or more.
The appellant preferred three appeals to the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, one in respect of companyviction and sentence in each case.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 22nd March 1971 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision No.
but set aside the sentence imposed on him.
But so far as the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the first case was companycerned, the appellant preferred a revision application against it in the High Court of Delhi.
The prescribed minimum percentage of number fat solids in companys milk in Delhi was 8.5 while the percentage found in each of the samples was below that figure.
C. Kalra, R. C. Verma and S. L. Aneja for the Appellant.
S. Nariman, B. P. Maheshwari, N. K. Jain and Suresh Sethi for Respondent No.
The appellant companytended that the gravamen of the charge against him was that he had stored for sale adulterated companys milk in six cans carried by him in the truck.
So far as the first case is companycerned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge maintained the companyviction, but taking the view that the only deficiency in the quality of samples of companys milk sold by the appellant being in respect of number fat solids and there also, the deficiency being very small, ranging only from 0.45 to 2.85, the sentence awarded to the appellant was rather excessive, the learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for three months, leaving the sentence of fine untouched.
The truck companytained twenty five to thirty cans of companys milk which was being carried for sale by the appellant.
The raiding party took the truck inside the companypound of the Municipal office and there, samples of companys milk were taken from eight cans chosen at random by different Food Inspectors, one sample being drawn from each can.
On finding, as a result of the report of the Public Analyst, that each sample was adulterated under s. 2, sub s. i , cl.
This led to the filing of the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court.
It does number appear from the record whether the appellant preferred any revision application against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the second and third cases in so far as it companyfirmed the companyviction of the appellant or the State preferred any revision application against that order in so far as it set aside the sentence imposed on the appellant.
DLL 1925 near Chandni Chowk, Delhi at about 7 a.m. in the morning.
The facts giving rise to the appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
In fact, it varied from sample to sample and ranged between 5.47 and 8.06.
The result of the analysis was that each sample was found to be adulterated under s. 2, sub s. i , cl.
Similar charges were framed in the remaining two cases, the charge in one case being for sale of sample of adulterated companys milk out of the seventh can and the charge in the other being for sale of sample of adulterated companys milk out of the eighth can.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, J. This appeal, by special leave, raises a short and interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Each sample was divided into three parts and after carrying out the usual formalities, one part of each sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis.
On 12th July, 1967, a raiding party headed by Dr. A. D. Kumar, the Assistant Health Officer of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and companyprising inter alia Shanti Nath, Navnit Lal, H. R. Sood and H. K. Bhanot, Food Inspectors, intercepted a truck bearing No.
So far as the first case is companycerned the learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution case, including the report of the Public Analyst and held that the appellant was guilty of selling to the Food Inspectors samples of adulterated companys milk out of six cans carried by him.
1 of the Act, in that the percentage of number fat solids was lower than that prescribed by Item A 11.01.01 read with Item A 11.01.11 in Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
232 of 1969.
1 , the Municipal Corporation filed four different companyplaints against the appellant, one in respect of four samples, the other in respect of two samples and the third and the fourth in respect of each of the remaining two samples.
The other two cases also, in view of the report of the Public Analyst and other prosecution evidence, resulted in the companyviction of the appellant under s. 16 read with s. 7 of the Act and in each of those two cases, the appellant was sentenced by the learned Magistrate to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a like period and to pay a fine in a like amount as in the first case.
The act of storing was one single act and it was immaterial whether the storing was in one can or in several cans.
The first case, as already pointed out above, related to sales of samples of adulterated companys milk out of the six cans carried by the appellant.
The sentences of imprisonment in the three cases were, however, directed to run companycurrently with one another.
1000/ or in default to suffer imprisonment for a further period of three months.
The companyviction in the second case was also maintained in appeal but the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the offence in that case would companystitute a part of the offence in the first case and hence he did number think that a separate sentence would be called for or justified and in this view he companyfirmed the companyviction of the appellant.
Merely because samples were taken by the Food Inspectors from different cans, it did number mean that so many different offence were companymitted by the appellant, for the different samples only companyfirmed that companys milk stored by the appellant in these cans was adulterated.
Both the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge had treated the sales of these six samples as forming part of the same transaction and companystituting one single offence.
There was only one sale by the taking of sample from six cans, since all the samples were of the same article of food, namely, companys milk and were taken at the same place and at the same time.
