JIVRAJ VIRCHAND Vs. BHIMRAO GURAPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused has filed this revision Application aggrieved by the order of conviction passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 106 of 1975 by the Sessions Judge, Sholapur, who confirmed the conviction of the accused applicant under section 7(i) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and enhanced the sentence to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The facts, in brief are as under :--- The accused Jivraj Virchand Gandhi runs a provisions shop at Akluj in Malsiras Taluka of Sholapur District. On 20th November, 1973 at about 5 p.m. one Londhe, Food Inspector, Sholapur, along with another Food Inspector Deshmukh and two panchas visited the shop of the accused. The accused had kept Atta for sale in his shop. Another sample of Maida was taken. However, we are not concerned with that sample for the purposes of this revision application. The Food Inspector purchased 600 Grams of Atta from the accused and paid him Rs. 1.20 ps. Other formalities were observed by the Food Inspector. The sample was divided into three equal parts. Sample was kept in clean empty dry bottles. The bottles were corked properly and wrapped with thick paper. It appears that sample was sent to the Public-Analyst for examination on 28th of November, 1973 and a report of the Public Analyst was received on 29th January, 1974. It is at Exhibit 18. He received the sample of Atta and analysed it and noted its observation as "cobwebs and grubs present." He also stated---

(3.) After this decision, a suo motu notice was issued by the Sessions Court why the sentence of the accused should not be enhanced. After hearing the accused, the learned Sessions Judge enhanced the sentence, as already stated above. It was contended before the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution has miserably failed to show that the accused sold adulterated article of food or that Atta was adulterated. The learned Sessions Judge did not accept that contention.