(1.) The petitioner was tried for the offences punishable under S. 16(1)(a)(ii), 7(i) and 2(ia) 9(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. the trial Court being satisfied with the evidence let in by the prosecution has held that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged and accordingly sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of six months and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer S. I. for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner accused filed an appeal in Crl. A. No. 15 of 1999. the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court. Hence, present revision case has been filed.
(2.) The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 23-8-1986 the Food Inspector visited the business premises of the petitioner and found 45 Kgs. of groundnut oil and three open tins for sale. On suspicion, the Food Inspector collected samples following the procedure contemplated in provision of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and sent the same for analysis on the same day. The Public analyst, who received the same on 26-8-1996, opined in his report dt.30-9-1996 that the sample does not conform to the iodine value and Bellier's test (turbidity temperature acetic acid) and as such it is adulterated. After receipt of the analyst report, the Food Inspector filed a complaint against the petitioner on 17-10-1996 and directed him to give a requisition, if he so desires, to send the second sample to another agency for examination. Accordingly, the petitioner gave a requisition on 27-10-1996.
(3.) The trial Court examined P. Ws. 1 to 3 on behalf of the prosecution and marked documents Exs. P-1 to P-13 and held that the petitioner guilty of the offence and accordingly sentenced him to suffer R. I for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. On appeal, the same was confirmed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool.