SANKARLAL TIWARI Vs. CUTTACK MUNICIPALITY
LAWS(ORI)-1988-1-31
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on January 25,1988

Sankarlal Tiwari Appellant
VERSUS
CUTTACK MUNICIPALITY Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

WIG V. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI SAROOP VS. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J. - (1.)The petitioner Sankarlal Tiwari along with one Subal Chandra Bhowmik faced trial under s. 1 "(1)(a)(i) read with s. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The trial court convicted the petitioner of the aforesaid charge and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default, to undergo further period of rigorous imprisonment for three months. Subal Chandra Bhowmik was acquitted of the charge. On appeal by the petitioner, the Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. Hence the petitioner has filed this revision petition challenging the said orders.
(2.)The gist of the allegations against the petitioner was that he was the owner and proprietor of the firm. M/s. Richpal Sankarlal, having its place of business at Malgodown, Cuttack. The firm used to deal with edible oils. On 27th July, 1978 the Food Inspector of Cuttack Municipality, PW respected the presents of the firm and suspecting that the stock of Vanaspati which was stored therefor sale for human consumption, to be adulterated served the notice as per Ext. 1 on the petitioner expressing his desire to purchase sample of Vanaspati Sohil) for analysis by Public Analyst, purchased 1500 grams of the said Vanaspati on payment of Rs. 14.48 as per the cash memo Ext. 2, divided the sample into three parts, packed it in three separate bottles and sealed them in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Then he served the notice as per Ext. 3 on the petitioner wherein he mentioned, inter alia, that at the time of purchase of the sample the petitioner disclosed that he had purchased the stock from the firm M/s Kaluram Mahadeo Prasad. The sample was examined by the Public Analyst to the Government of Orissa, Bhubaneshwar who opined, as per his report dt. 8th Sept., 1978 (Ext. 6), that it did not conform to the standard prescribed for Vanaspati in respect of "free fatty acids" and "red colour produced by the Baudouin test." A copy of the said report was sent to the petitioner as required under the Rules. After obtaining sanction of the CDMO, Cuttack, prosecution was launched against the petitioner and Subal Chandra Bhowmik, Depot Manager of the firm M/s. Kaluram Mahadeo Prasad.
(3.)At the trial before the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack the petitioner did not dispute that he was the owner and proprietor of the firm M/s. Richpal Sankarlal, but denied the allegation that he has stored adulterated Vanaspati for sale in his godown. He also admitted to have received the notice from PW1 expressing his desire to purchase the sample for analysis, but expressed his ignorance about the procedure followed by him after the purchase. The other accused person, namely, Subal Chandra Bhowmik, Depot Manager of the firm M/s. Kaluram Mahadeo Prasad in his statement under s. 313 Crimial P.C. expressed that he could not say without referring to his records if the Vanaspati from which the sample was collected had been sold by the firm to the petitioner.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.