MOHANLAL MAGANLAL SINDHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Application is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge Kaira at Nadiad in Criminal Appeal No.148/76 whereby he confirmed the conviction of the applicants under sec. 2(1) (5) read with sec. 16(1) (A) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter called as the Act) while reducing the sentence of applicant No. 1. Mohanlal Maganlal Sindhi to S.I. till the rising of the court and fine of Rs. 10 R.I. for one month Barring this modification in sentence of applicant No. 1 the appeal came to be dismissed and the applicants were directed to surrender to their bail. The applicant being aggrieved by this decision of the learned Sessions Judge has come in revision complaining that the mandatory Rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (hereinafter called the Rules) were violated in the instant case and hence the conviction recorded by both the courts should Pot be sustained. The facts relevant for the disposal of this application are as under :

(2.) Opponent No. 2 Ramanlal Punjabhai Sharma was serving as Food Inspector Anand Nagarpalika on 15th July 1975 On that date at about 4 P. M. he visited the shop run in the name and style of Mohan Bakery at Anand and collected samples of Gopeni Goli weighing about 600 gms. for Rs. 3.00 and gave a written notice in that behalf to applicant No. 1 who was present at the shop stating that the purchase was for analysis by the Public Analyst. The samples were divided in three equal parts and were packed in empty clean and colourless bottles and were sealed as required by the Rules and the signatures of the panchas were obtained thereon. One sample bottle was given to applicant No. 1 and in token thereof a receipt was obtained. Out of the remaining two sample bottles one was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis with a memorandum affixed thereon containing the impression of the seal and another memorandum was separately sent along with the impression of the seal to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst ex. 20 shows that the seals affixed on the container and the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seals separately sent by the Food Inspector and the sample was in a condition fit for analysis. The result of the analysis indicated that the sample was sub-standard. On receipt of this report opponent No. 2 after obtaining the necessary sanction from the Municipality lodged the complaint against the present applicants.

(3.) The learned Magistrate on appreciation of the evidence placed on record came to the conclusion that the applicants were guilty of having committed an offence punishable under sec. 2(1)(A) read with sec. 16 (1) (A) of the Act and directed them to suffer R. I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000.00i.d. to suffer R.I. for 3 months. Being aggrieved by the said order the applicants preferred an appeal to the learned Sessions Judge Kaira at Nadiad which appeal came to be dismissed except for the modification in the sentence indicated above.