K JAYA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision filed by the petitioner who is convicted under Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo Simple, Imprisonment for one day i.e.; till the rising of the court and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner-accused is the salesman of Brooke Bond India Limited, Kothapet Depot, Guntur. The petitioner was storing and selling coffee and tea powder of that company without paying licence fee and running the trade. A notice, therefore, was issued to him on 12-2-1988 directing to pay licence fee of Rs. 50/- plus belated fee of Rs. 13/- totalling to an amount of Rs. 63/-, but the petitioner did not pay the same. Thus the petitioner has violated Rule 50 of the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Food Inspector filed the complaint stating the above facts. The petitioner when examined denied the offence. The complainant has examined himself as P.W. -1 and another as P.W. 2, and got marked Ex. P-I to P-7 On behalf of the petitioner D.W. -1 was examined and Exs. Dl to D-5 marked. The Trial Court after considering the entire material on record found that the petitioner has contravened Rule 50 as he was running the trade without obtaining licence. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the lower appellate court which confirmed the order of the Trial Court and dismissed the said appeal. Against that judgment, the present appeal is filed.

(3.) Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that it is a fact that the conducting of business in food articles without obtaining licence as contemplated under Rule 50 amounts to an offence but the authorities have not framed any rules as to who is the licensing authority, what is the prescribed proforma for issuing license and how much amount has to be paid for obtaining licence etc., and, therefore, in the absence of, any rules the petitioner is not obliged to obtain licence and there is no contravention of Rule 50 on the part of the petitioner and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed.