LAWS(RAJ)-1999-4-98

ROSHAN RAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On April 08, 1999
Roshan Raj Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused petitioner Roshan Raj was convicted and sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment for offence under Sec. 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta vide judgment dated 10.1.1984. Appeal was preferred by the petitioner but he was unsuccessful and the same was dismissed on 7.8.1989 by learned Sessions Judge, Merta. Hence this revision petition was preferred.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and went through the record of the Trial Court.

(3.) Briefly stated case of prosecution is that on 28.2.1980 Food Inspector Om Singh purchased sesame oil from the petitioner for the purpose of analysis after paying Rs. 4.34 in a quantity of 375 grams. It was poured in three bottles and samples were prepared. One of sample bottles was sent to the Public Analyst who examined the same and vide report dated 17.3.1980 found that the sample was adulterated. Two sample bottles were sent to the Local Health Authority. Sanction was obtained from the Competent Authority and complaint was submitted before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Statement of Food Inspector was recorded and thereafter charge against the petitioner was framed and read over to him on 9.7.1982 who denied his indictment, claimed trial and desired to further cross examine the Food Inspector. Food Inspector was further cross examined. Motbir witness PW-2 Hanuman Prasad was also examined on behalf of prosecution. Then the accused petitioner was examined under Sec. 313 Cr. P.C. After hearing both the parties, order of conviction and sentence was recorded as stated above. It may also be pertinent to mention that during the trial on the request of accused petitioner sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory which gave its verdict that the sample was not according to the prescribed standard and, therefore, the same was adulterated.