NAGASURI PULLAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore in Crl. Appeal No. 24 of 1996 confirming the sentence to undergo S.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer S.I. for one month imposed by the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Kavali in C.C. No. 170 of 1991.

(2.) It is the case of the respondent-being Food Inspector who presented the complaint that on 27-3-1991 at about 6.30 p.m. he went to the shop of the accused along with K. Achaiah and called the mediators by name P. Narasimham and Sk. Kasim and checked the food articles kept for sale. It is also the case of the complainant that he has purchased 450 grams of ground nut oil for Rs. 15-75 ps and paid the amount and obtained the receipt and he divided the said ground nut oil into three equal parts and kept in three empty dry cleaned bottles, closed with cork and lid tightly and tied with thread and affixed seals then the label issued by the Local Health Authority was pasted on each bottle. That each bottle was packed with thick wrapper paper and the paper slip bearing C. No. 327/SLR/BII/S. No. 3878/1991 issued by the State Local Health Authority was affixed on each bottle which goes from bottom to and around the bottle and then he obtained the signatures of the accused in the manner described. Then he tied with thread on all the four sides and affixed seals on four sides covering the knots also, and then K. Atchaiah drafted the mediators report and on 29-3-1991 the said Atchalah despatched the sample bottle along with form VII Memorandum to the public analyst. Hyderabad by Regd. Post parcel. It is further stated in the complaint that the remaining ample bottles along with Form VII Memorandum in duplicate were despatched to the Director and State Local (Health) Authority, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad by Regd. Post parcel and the Public Analyst sent the Form II report dt. 10-5-1991 and the same was received by K. Atchaiah and the analyst opined in his report that the sample was not conforming to Butyro-refractometer reading and it contained cotton seed oil and castor oil. It is adulterated and thereafter the accused has been charge-sheeted.

(3.) The plea of the revision petitioner is one of denial.