K BHIMA RAJU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner stands convicted for an offence under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), and has been sentenced thereunder to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of one month.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, is that on 11 -2 -72 P.W. 1, the Food Inspector visited the shop of the petitioner and purchased a sample of Pea Besan in accordance with the rules. The said sample was found by the Public Analyst to have contained slight traces of Khesari starch in it.

(3.) MR . Dhal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the most essential ingredient constituting the offence of which the petitioner stands convicted, as there is absolutely no evidence on record that the said Pea Basan was stored in the shop for sale for human consumption or was sold to P.W. 1 with that understanding. He contends that the finding of the Court below, that the aforesaid sale of Pea Besan to P.W. 1 was for human consumption and not for any other purpose, is patently ill -founded, illegal and incorrect as the sole basis of the said, finding is the presumption illegally drawn on the fact that the petitioner did not specifically allege in his defence that the said Besan was kept in the shop for any other purpose other than for sale for human consumption.