SRINIVAS PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Conviction awarded and sentence imposed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Boudh and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani, are assailed in this revision application.

(2.) The Petitioner faced trial for having contravened the provisions of Sec. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the 'Act'). Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that on 28-8-1984 the Petitioner was carrying on business under the name and style of M/s Bhairabi Store and had exhibited several food articles including edible oil, Ata, Suji, Sugar, etc. for sale for human consumption. Suspecting some food articles to be adulterated, the Food Inspector purchased til oil and turmeric powder on payment of requisite price. The samples collected were 0.375 grams in respect of til oil and 0.600 grams in respect of turmeric powder. The samples collected for each item were divided into three equal parts, put in clean, empty and dry bottles duly cooked, labelled and sealed in the presence of the Petitioner and witnesses after observing the formalities stipulated for collection of samples. One each of the sample bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, Orissa, Bhubaneswar by registered parcel and the copy of memorandum with specimen impression of the seal were separately sent to the said Public Analyst also by registered post with acknowledgement slip. The other bottles in respect of each sample were sent to the Chief District Medical Officer, Phulbani for future reference. The Public Analyst found that the samples collected did not satisfy the requisite standard and certified them to be adulterated. After obtaining written consent from the sanctioning authority, prosecution was launched. The Public, Analyst reports have been exhibited as Exts. 10 and 11 and the, memorandum, and the impressions of the specimen seal used have been exhibited as Exts. 3,4, 5 and 6, and the notice of dispatch by registered post to the Public Analyst, the acknowledgement receipt and the certificates issued by the Post Office respectively have been marked as Exts. 8, 8/1 and 7 respectively.

(3.) Two witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution, while the Petitioner took the plea of denial of the occurrence as alleged and examined no witness. On evaluation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution; the learned trial magistrate found that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge under Sec. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and, therefore, found the Petitioner guilty. It is relevant to mention here that prosecution was launched against the Petitioner and one M/s. Bhairabi Store being represented by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 in default to undergo further period of imprisonment for one month. The orders of conviction and sentence were confirmed by the appellate Court.