MAKHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicant preferred this Criminal Revision against the judgment dated 14th September, 2004 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, Sessions Division, Raipur in Criminal Appeal No. 291/2003 whereby the Addl. Session Judge affirmed the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence of applicant dated 18-10-2003 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate. Dhamtari in Criminal Case No. 389/2001 whereby and whereunder CJM, Dhamtari convicted the Applicant for the offence punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 1954') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months. The unfolded complainant's case is that, RW. 1 J.C. Verma was posted as Food Inspector in District Flying Squad in Raipur district. As per order dated 31-7-1998 issued by the Controller, Food and Drug Administration, Bhopal he was ordered to work in newly formed district of Madhya Pradesh State. On 27-3-1999 he had inspected a grocery shop situated in village Khisora. At that time, proprietor-acquitted co-accused Johat Ram was not present and in-charge of that shop applicant was present. Food Inspector J.C. Verma had given the notice of Form No. 6 under Prevention of Food Control Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called as 'Rules 1955') to applicant and purchased a polypack of 1 kg PP sweets hard boiled confectionery from him by paying Rs. 15/-. A receipt was also prepared regarding it. P.W. 1 J.C. Verma broken said confectionery and apportioned it in three equal parts, and filled them in three clean polythenes and closed it. He pasted the paper slip upon each packet. He covered each packet through brown paper and pasted the label on every packet. He sealed them. He prepared panchnama on the spot. On 28-3-1999 he sent one sample along with the Form 7 of the Rules 1955 in a outer cover to Public analyst, Bhopal through registered parcel. He also sent impression of seal separately to Public Analyst by registered post. He deposited remaining two samples along with Form-7, in sealed outer cover in concerned office at Raipur. As per the report of the Public Analyst dated 7-5-1999 Ex. P-14, the sample was found adulterated. Applicant and co-accused Johat Ram have not produced any bill or warranty regarding said purchase. Dy. Director, Food and Drugs, Dhamtari granted sanction for prosecution against the applicant and said accused by order dated 5-3-2001 vide Ex. P-1. On 26-3-2001 a complaint was filed against applicant and said accused. A notice Ex. P-19C dated 3-4-2001 had been given to the applicant and said accused but they do not apply to the Court to send another sample in Central Food Laboratory for re-analysis of another sample.

(2.) Further complainant's case is that the Court has framed the charge against the applicant and said accused under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1) of the Act of 1954. They abjured the allegation levelled against them. To bring home the guilt of the applicant and the accused, complainant examined 3 witnesses after framing of charge. Applicant and the said accused do not examine any defence witness. After conclusion of the trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the applicant as aforesaid and also convicted co-accused Johat Ram under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1) of the Act of 1955 (sic 1954), and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 3 months. In the appeal, co-accused Johat Ram was acquitted by aforesaid appellate Court. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred this revision.

(3.) Shri R.S. Patel argued that public analyst has not mentioned in his report that, allegedly what colour and what chemical class were found in the sample, thus the conviction and sentences are not proper and they could not be sustained.