N C GEORGE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition is aganist the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner under sec. 16(1)(d) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, ('Act' for short) and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl. Appeal No. 34 of 1992.

(2.) P.W. 1, the Food Inspector filed the compliant alleging that at or about 11 a.m. on 18-3-1985, he inspected the shop in which the revision petitioner was conducting a provision store. According to the complainant, he disclosed his identity to the accused and asked for sample of coriander powder kept in small packets, each containing 100 gms for the purpose of analysis. The revision petitioner refused to sell the sample to him. It is alleged that the accused told P.W. 1 that if he wants to take any sample, the accused will decide from what food article sample should be taken. When the Food Inspector insisted that he wanted coriander powder itself as sample, the revision petitioner refused to acknowledge receipt of Form No. VI notice, went out of the shop and left the place in a scooter which was kept outside the shop. The complaint was filed on 9-4-1985. The learned Magistrate, after trial, convicted the revision petitioner for the offences charged under sec. 16(1)(d) of the Act and imposed the minimum sentence prescribed under the statute. The revision petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 309 of 1986 before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge concurred with the finding of the learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. The revision petitioner filed criminal Revision Petition No. 96 of 1987 before this Court. This court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner and remanded the case for affording an opportunity to the revision petitioner to adduce further evidence. The Magistrate was directed to consider the matter afresh after receiving further evidence. After remand, P.W. 4 was recalled and further examined. D.Ws. 2 to 7 were examined, and Exts. D5 to D8 were proved. The learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence, again found the revision petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two more months. The appeal filed by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 34 of 1992 before the Sessions Court was dismissed. Those concurrent findings are under challenge in this criminal revision petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has argued that the finding of the courts below that the revision petitioner was the licensee and owner of the grocery shop in room No. IX/459 of Kothamangalam Municipality was not based on any evidence. It is also contended that the revision petitioner had produced positive evidence to show that he was neither the licensee nor the proprietor of the business conducted in the shop. It is also argued that the accused had adduced evidence to show that the business was conducted by another person. It is also argued that the specific case put forward by P.W. 1 was that the revision petitioner obstructed P.W. 1 from discharging his official duties and to prove that fact, the only evidence available was that of the Food Inspector himself. It is argued that of the Food Inspector himself. It is argued that the evidence of P.W. 2, the so called independent witness examined to prove the presence of the revision petitioner at the shop, cannot be believed and the evidence adduced by the revision petitioner will clearly show that at that time P.W. 2 was actually working inside a factory. It is also submitted that the revision petitioner had examined the manager cum accountant in charge of the business at that time and his evidence was rejected by the courts below without assigning any reasons. Finally it is argued that even if the complainant's case that the revision petitioner refused to accept a copy of form No. VI notice is accepted as such that will not amount to an offence and the admission made by the Food Inspector himself shows that he could have taken the sample even in the absence of the revision petitioner.