A NARNAPPA Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR CITY MUNICIPALITY RAICHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the correctness and legality of the conviction and sentence passed on him by the First Class Magistrate, Raichur, in CC.No.1183 of 1970, and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Raichur, in Cr.A.No.13 of 1972. The petitioner has been convicted for having committed an offence punishable under S.7 read with S.16(l) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months As it was found that even after conviction of the petitioner, the petitioner had not made State a party-respondent in this revision petition, I directed Sri M. Ramakrishna, Government Pleader, who is present in Court in connection with other matters, to take notice of this petition and argue on behalf of the State. He obliged the Court by taking notice immediately and argued on behalf of the State.

(2.) The prosecution case is that at about 2-30 or 3-00 PM. on 7-2-1970 PW.1 the Food Inspector went to the shop of the petitioner The petitioner is a retail dealer in grocery, articles. PW.1 called PW.2 Mahaboob and another person by name Abdul Salam who were nearby to witness his purchasing sample of Toor Dal from the petitioner. PW.1 issued notice as per Ex.P1 to the petitioner that he was going to purchase sample of Toor Dal fcr purposes of getting the same analysed by a Public Analyst. The petitioner received the notice Ex.P1. Then PW.1 purchased 600 grams of Tcor Dal by paying 0.96 P., the price of the same to the petitioner. The petitioner issued receipt Ex.P2 for having received 0.96 P. for the sale of 600 grams of Toor Dal. Then PW.1 got a panchanama recorded as per Ex. P3. That panchanama is in regard to dividing of the sample of 600gms. into three packets and sealing the same and handing over one of the sealed packets to the petitioner. The two panchas PW.2 Mahaboob and Abdul Salam as well as the petitioner affixed their thumb impressions or signatures as the case may be on Ex. P3. The panchanama Ex. P3 was recorded in the presence of all these persons. Thereafter PW.1 sent one of the sealed sample packet to the Public Analyst at Bangalore, who sent his report as per Ex.P6 stating that the Toor Dal analysed by him contained prohibited colouring. It is on receipt of this report that PW. 1 lodged his complaint against the petitioner on 22-7-1970.

(3.) The defence put forward by the petitioner is one of total denial. He has even denied having sold any Toor Dal to PW.l as contended by the prosecution. It may be mentioned at this stace that he has not attempted to explain his signatures below Exts.P2 and P3, and so also on the obverse of ExFl.