SHANMUGAM Vs. STATE BY FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Erode made in C.A. No.56 of 1989 dated 29-9-1989 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court at Dharapuram made in C.C. No. 421 of 1986 and thereby sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default of the said payment to undergo further period of three months rigorous imprisonment on a charge framed against the revision petitioner herein under Sec. 7(1), 16(1) a(1) read with 2(1a) (a) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief as culled out from the recorded evidence and judgments of Courts below is as follows ; - P.W.1, the Sanitary Inspector attached to Dharapuram Panchayat Union was engaged for the purpose of taking food samples at the junction of Meenakshipuram situate in Dharapuram Main Road within his jurisdiction and during that time tied with a cane and measures on the carrier of a cycle the revision petitioner came along that way, and on being introduced and enquired the revision petitioner was doing business in milk during at that time for the purpose of retail business, P.W.1 took samples from the revision petitioner after serving Form No.6 under the cover of Ex.P.1 attested by witnesses by paying the cost of the milk taken as sample as evident from the receipt and that the quantity of sample taken by him was about 750 m.l. under Ex. P-2 after obtaining the signature of the revision petitioner and then prepared the respective samples by following all the procedural rules provided under the Food Adulteration Act and prepared Form No.7 under Ex. P-3 and then dispatched the same for the chemical analysis as provided by the rules and laws. Then he followed the other mandate prescribed by the rules of the Food Adulteration Act. On 22-5-1986 he received Ex.P-6 and found that the sample milk found deficit of non-fat contents by 7.05% and fat contents by 6.2% and that thus the milk sample was found to be adulterated. After sending the intimation to the Health Officer, prepared Form No. 13(2) under Ex.P-7 and along with Form No.3 served on the revision petitioner, got an acknowledgement and laid the charge sheet for the offence in a Court of Law.

(3.) On being questioned by the trial Court, the revision petitioner has denied his complicity in to to and pleaded innocence. On such denial, assessing the entire evidence, oral and documentary, recorded before the trial Court, the trial Court found the revision petitioner guilty as above stated and against which on the re-assessment of the same in the appeal preferred, the lower appellate court has confirmed the said judgment of conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner, against which the present revision is sought for as stated above.