S ARUNACHALAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these revisions are disposed of together by a common order since the question raised for consideration is identical.

(2.) IT will be necessary to briefly state the facts in each one of these revision case before narrating the grounds urged.

(3.) CRL.R.C.No.1 of 1993: This revision relates to S.T.C.No.3 of 1992 pending on the file of the same Special Court. Assistant Technical Commissioner of Supply and Consumer Protection, took sample of groundnut oil and double refined groundnut oil from the shop of petitioner on 16.2.1991.From each food articles, three bottles of sample were taken. Sale consideration was also paid to the petitioner from whose premises (Sheik Dawood Sait Oil Stores), samples were seized. On 20.3.1991 one bottle from each of the sample seized were forwarded for analysis, while two remaining bottles were despatched to the Revenue office. The report of the Analyst disclosed that the sample of double groundnut oil was adulterated. On the basis of the report of the analyst on 25.11.1991 the seizing officer gave a complaint to the respondent, who registered Cr.No.313 of 1991 and after completion of investigation, laid final report before the Special Court on 19.12.1991.In between, on 27. 11.1991 one sample bottle from each of the seizures was sent to court. On