SANTOSH KUMAR DATTA Vs. CHAIRMAN, SAPATGRAM SMALL TOWN COMMITTED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been directed against the judgement and order of the Sessions Judge, Dhubri, dated 21.3.1973 affirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter called the Act), for storage of adulterated mustard oil, for sale.

(2.) THE Assistant Surgeon I of Sapatgram, as Food Inspector, took samples of mustard oil from the shop of the petitioner on 30.4.1968 and sent the same to the Public Analyst for examination and report. The Public Analyst in his report dated 9.7.1968 opined that the sample was of adulterated mustard oil. The only ground on which the sample was held to be adulterated by the Public Analyst is that sesame oil (til oil) was found present in the sample. The other ingredients of the sample oil were found to be within the limit prescribed for mustard oil in Item 17.06 of Appendix 'B' to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called the Rules). On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst the petitioner was prosecuted before the Additional District Magistrate (J), Dhubri under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Act for sale and storage for sale of adulterated mustard oil on a complaint by the Chairman of the Sapatgram Small Town Committee. The learned Additional District Magistrate found the petitioner to be guilty both for sale and storage for sale of adulterated mustard oil and accordingly convicted him under the aforesaid Section and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - in dafault to R.I. for another 3 months on each count, i.e. for sale and storage for sale of adulterated mustard oil. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the petitioner of the charge for selling adulterated mustard oil on the technical ground that P.W. 4, Dr. Nayak who took the sample was not validly appointed as Food Inspector under the Act. He however affirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for storage of adulterated mustard oil for sale, by his judgement and order dated 21.3.1973 which is the impugned order.

(3.) MR . J.P. Bhattacharjee the learned counsel for the petitioner attacked the impugned order on two grounds. His first contention was that there is no valid sanction for prosecution of the petitioner and as such the impugned order is without any jurisdiction. His other contention was that the report of the Public Analyst does not go to establish that the sample in question was of adulterated mustard oil, to warrant the conviction of the petitioner for storage of adulterated mustard oil.