- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.9.2014, passed by Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar in F.S.S. Case No. 28/2013-14, whereby and whereunder the court having found the appellant guilty for selling salt of Sub-standard quality and for keeping it in unhygienic condition, convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 51 and 59(1) of the Food Safety and Standard Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 3 lacs for both the offences.
(2.) Food Safety Officer, Deoghar collected the sample of salt having brand name as "SUDH" and sent for its testing to State Food and Drugs Laboratory, Namkom, Ranchi through Designated Officer, A.C.M.O, Deoghar. Upon the sample being analyzed, it was found of substandard grade with unsafe in terms of Section 3 (zz) (x) and (xi) of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006. On receiving report, Designated Officer sent the report to the appellant calling upon him to get the sample reanalyzed, if he wishes to do so, from the Referral Laboratory, Ghaziabad. The appellant did not opt for reanalyzing and thereby, the report was submitted before the Adjudicating Officer. Upon which, the case was registered as Case No. 28/2013-14. Thereupon, summon was issued to the appellant, who upon putting appearance, submitted an application stating therein that though the appellant does deal with the Iodized salt, but the salt, sample of which have been collected from a bag, had been eaten out by rats and, therefore, the salt had been kept out side of the shop for the purpose of use for tanning of skin of the animal and also for the purpose of using electrical earthing and, thereby, it was never for the use of human consumption. The Adjudicating Officer, after having regard to the fact that the sample which was collected from the shop of the appellant was of substandard quality and had been kept in unhygienic condition and also the plea taken by the appellant found the appellant guilty for selling the salt which was of substandard quality and has been kept in unhygienic condition and, thereby, recorded the order of conviction and sentence as aforesaid, which is under challenge before this Court.
(3.) According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant since Food Safety Appellate Tribunal has still not been constituted by the State Government appeal has been preferred before this Court.;