SRIHARIKOTA VENKATA RAMANAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A1 and A2 in CC No.244 of 1999 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, were found guilty of the offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(ii) and 7(i) and (v) and 2(i)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the Act") and Rule 44(e) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (for short "the Rules") and accordingly they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 30 days each for the said offences by its judgment dated 24.3.2003. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, both A1 and A2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Nellore. However, the said first appellate Court by its judgment dated 6.5.2005 has dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and conviction and sentence of both the accused passed by the trial Court in CC No.244 of 1999. Aggrieved by the same, both the accused have preferred this criminal revision case, inter alia, on the following grounds:

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that on 4.9.1998 at about 2-30 p.m., PW1 - the Food Inspector, Nellore along with his Attender - PW2 visited the kirana shop of the accused at Myapdu Beach C enter and inspected the same by suspecting the groundnut oil found in a tin meant for sale for human consumption to be adulterated, secured the presence of PW3 - mediator after serving Form - VI on the accused, purchased 40 grams of groundnut oil from the accused by paying Rs. 18/- and obtaining receipt thereto and A1, who was present in the shop, disclosed himself as a salesman and A2 as proprietor of the shop. THE purchased oil was divided into three equal parts, poured into three empty cleaned and dry bottles, sealed the same and after complying with the other formalities, one of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst and the remaining two samples were handed over to the Local Health Authority. Ex.P10 analysis report is to the effect that the sample did not conform to the standards of Butyro-refractimeter reading, Bellier's test, Iodine value and saponification value contains palmolein oil, and therefore, adulterated. After receiving Ex.P10, a complaint was filed in the trial Court.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revision petitioners - A1 and A2 has raised the self-same grounds as raised in the grounds of revision and in addition thereto he submits that the prosecution has failed to add the wholesaler or manufacturer of the alleged adulterated oil as one of the accused and the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution. He also submits that it is statutory requirement that the prosecution should secure the presence of an independent witnesses to act as mediators for raising the samples under cover of panchanama, which has not been done in this case, as such, the same is also fatal to the case of the prosecution. He also submits that the copies of information under Exs.P1 to P5 were not served on A2, who is proprietor of the shop, and A1 is only a salesman, as such, the same also goes to the root of the case and vitiates the trial.