CHANDRIKA PROSAD RAI Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Chandrika Prosad Rai
The State Of Assam
Click here to view full judgement.
Baharul Islam J. -
(1.) THIS is an application in revision by the petitioner, who was convicted by a first class Magistrate (Judicial), Gauhati, under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called 'the Act) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more. On appeal by the petitioner, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate was upheld by the Sessions Judge, Kamrup. fifcgice this petition.
(2.) THE prosecution case is that the District Food Inspector, Soba Prasad Sarrna, visited Kapurba Restaurant at Bamuiiimaidan and purchased 600 grams of 'Bundia' (sweet) from the petitioner (who gave his name as 'Madhusudnan Rai', which was actually his -father's name). The article was divided info 3 parts and each part was put in a container and one part was sent to the Public Analyst for chemical examination and another part in a container was given to the petitioner. The Public Analyst gave his opinion that the sample of bundia was coloured with "Metanil Yellow", which is prohibited. On receipt of the report from the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector, aforesaid, obtained necessary sanction from the Civil Surgeon of the District for prosecution of the petitioner and submitted an offence report against 'Madhusudhan Rai'. Madhusudhan was accordingly summoned and was allowed to go on bail of Rs. 1,000/ -, On 17 -4 -1972 when the Magistrate proceeded to take evidence in the case, the Food Inspector pointed out that the man in the dock was not the man from whom he had purchased the bundia. The Magistrate then issued warrant of arrest against "Madhusudhan Rao" to be identified by the Food Inspector. On identification of the Food Inspector, the petitioner Chandrika Prosad Rai, son of Shri Madhusudhan Rai, was arrested by police. Thereafter the prosecution examined two witnesses and having found a prima facie case charged the petitioner under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act. The defence of the petitioner was that it was not he who sold the bundia in question and he pleaded not guilty to the charge,
(3.) ONE of the points that came up for decision before the Magistrate was whether the petitioner Chandrika Prosad Rai was the person who sold the bundia in question and he came to the finding that it was the petitioner who sold the bundia to the Food Inspector and that he gave his name as Madhusudhan Rai, which, in fact, was the name of his father. He further held that there was no mistake in the identity of the accused.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.