KHAJA MOHIDEEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner has been convicted of an offence punishable under S. 16(1)(a)(ii) read with S. 7(i) and S. 2(ia)(e) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and R. 44(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and to a fine of Rs. 500/- by the Judicial First Class Magistrate. Tirunelveli, and in appeal the Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, confirmed the conviction and sentence

(2.) THE facts are :- P.W. 1, Food Inspector attached to Nanguneri town Panchayat, visited the grocery shop of the revision petitioner on 16-8-1979 at about 11 a.m. and purchased 810 grams of coconut oil for Rs. 9-72 p. He served Ex. P-1, Form VI, notice on the revision petitioner who acknowledged it. Ex. P-1 was attested by one Jamanani who is examined as D.W. 1 in the case. P.W. 1 divided the coconut oil so purchased into three equal parts and sealed them in three clean dry bottles and sent one such bottle to the Local (Health) Authority and another to the Public Analyst. Ex. P-3 is the report of the Public Analyst which show that the sample contained 80 per cent of coconut oil and 20 per cent of castor oil. After obtaining sanction, the Food Inspector filed the complaint into court on 8-10-1979

(3.) A persual of the evidence of the Food Inspector and the records in this case clearly show that the sample was taken on 16-8-1979 by the Food Inspector for analysis. The evidence of P.W. 1 and Ex. P-1 very clearly shows that a sample of 810 grams of coconut oil was taken from the shop of the revision petitioner. Ex. P-2 shows that P.W. 1 has paid a sum of Rs. 9.75 for 810 grams of coconut oil taken as sample from the shop of the revision petitioner for analysis. But the revision petitioner denied any such sale and examined D.W. 1, the attestor to Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2, to show that there was no such sale. According to D.W. 1, the attestor, his signature in Ex. P-1 and P-2 were taken at the office of the Health Inspector. He admits in cross-examination that he used to purchase grocery articles from the shop of the revision petitioner. This revision. I cannot say that there is any flaw in the appreciation of evidence by the courts below