HANUMAN PRASAD LOHIA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Hanuman Prasad Lohia
State Of Assam And Another
Click here to view full judgement.
B.N. Sarma, J. -
(1.) This revision petition is directed against an order of the Sessions Judge at Tezpur upholding in appeal the conviction of the petitioner Shri Hanuman Prasad Lohia under Section 16 (I) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act,) and his sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to rigorous imprisonment for another one month, awarded by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Darrang in Criminal Case No. 537 of 1970.
(2.) The petitioner is said to be one of the partners of a firm at Tezpur known as M/s. Nagarmal Nandkisore. which deals in articles of food including mustard oil. The prosecution case in brief was that on 8-7-6) Dr. K K. Choudhury (P.W.), who is the Public Health Inspector of Tezpur, visited the premises of the said firm with two peons namely Sushil Kumar Das (P.W. 2 and Krishna Ram Das (P.W. 3) and took samples of mustard oil from a sealed tin in three bottles in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules thereunder from one Gangaram Sarma, an employee of the firm in presence of the petitioner, for examination by the Public Analyst, suspecting the oil to be adulterated. All the three bottles were sealed in presence of said Gangaram as well as the petitioner and one of the same was given to Gangaram and of the other two bottles, one w as sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The Public Analyst after examination of the sample sent to him submitted a report (Ext. 5) to the effect that the sample was of adulterated mustard oil Thereafter P.W. 1 lodged a complaint against the said Gangaram Sharma and the petitioner under Section 16(1 )(a) of the Act after obtaining the sanction for prosecution from the Chairman of the Tezpur Municipal Board.
(3.) Subsequently, being unable to cause production of accused Gangaram, the prosecution withdrew the case against him and the case was proceeded with against the petitioner alone. The prosecution examined three witnesses mentioned above and on their evidence a charge under section 16(1)(a) of the Act was framed against the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty. It may be mentioned here that at the instance of the defence the Public Analyst was produced in Court and he was cross-examined by the defence.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.