CHANDULAL POPATLAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revisionist came to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 7 (5) read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for sale of adulterated turmeric powder, by the Food Inspector in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 8, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 13 of 1993 and came to be convicted therefor by judgment and order dated 2nd December, 1994 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(2.) THE prosecution was on the basis of the fact that the sample sent to Public Analyst was found to contain wheat starch. On the summons being served, the Revisionist asked for the sample being sent to the Central Food Laboratory (CFL" for short) and the sample was, accordingly, sent. The CFL also confirmed presence of wheat starch. As per the standards prescribed, turmeric powder is not supposed to contain any amount of wheat starch. 2. 1 The judgment and order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate was challenged in appeal before City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1994, which came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 12th January, 1996, confirming the conviction and the sentence by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court. It is against these two judgments and orders that the present Revision Application is preferred.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate, Mr. Shelat, for the Revisionist has contended that for testing the presence or absence of wheat starch, chemical examination is essential as per several judicial pronouncements. He relied on the decision in the case of Jagdish Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 1 SCC 350 and the decision in State of Gujarat on behalf of M. G. Shaikh, Food Inspector v. Ahmed Gulam Mohmed Umar, 2005 (1) FAC 62 besides two unreported judgments of this High Court, one in Criminal Revision Application No. 267 of 1993 dated 15. 9. 1993 (Coram: N. J. Pandya, J.) and another in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1984 with Criminal Appeal No. 1030 of 1984, decided on 11. 6. 1993 (Coram: B. C. Patel, J.), only in respect of turmeric powder. He submitted that this aspect was not considered by the Courts below and conviction is recorded and confirmed. Mr. Shelat submitted that the Appellate Court committed an error by observing that the evidence of Public Analyst supports his report and his report is at par with the CFL report and, therefore, the case is proved. He, therefore, submitted that the Revision Application may be allowed by setting aside the judgments and orders of the Courts below.