SYED AHAMMED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner was accused in Criminal Case No.1022/2008, in the Court of the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., at Sakaleshpura, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Trial Court"), who, by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dtd. 20/6/2016 of the Trial Court, was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 7(i), 7(ii) read with Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Act") and was sentenced accordingly.

(2.) The summary of the case of the complainant as mentioned in his complaint filed under Sec. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "Cr.P.C.") was that, on the date 20/6/2008, the complainant, as a Food Inspector, while on his duty at Azad Road, Sakaleshpura, at about 5:00 p.m., visited a Shop by name M/s. Select Coffee Works and inspected the coffee seeds and its powder which were meant for public sale and noticed that the accused had stored and was selling misbranded and adulterated coffee powder in his Shop. The complainant, who was accompanied with his staff, purchased 600 grams of coffee powder and subjected them for scientific analysis and through the report from the Analyst, confirmed that the coffee power was adulterated and misbranded as it was found that the caffeine content in it was 0.4% and aqueous extract was 55.0% and that it was also misbranded by virtue of non- printing of batch number and 'best before' on it. Hence, the complainant alleged that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Ss. 7(i) and 7(ii) and 16(a)(i) of the Act.

(3.) The accused appeared in the Trial Court and contested the matter through his counsel. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such, in order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, the prosecution got examined four (04) witnesses from PW-1 to PW-4, got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-16 and produced two Material Objects (coffee powder packets) as MO-1 and MO-2. However, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were got marked on behalf of the accused.