R CHANDRAKANTH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against the judgments of the courts below wherein the petitioner was convicted for the alleged offence punishable under sections 16(1)(a)(i), 7(ii) and 2(ix) (a) (e) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act) and ultimately was found guilty of the said offence and accordingly, sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs.1000.00 , in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

(2.) Admittedly, the Sanitary Inspector who was the complainant visited the shop of the petitioner on 11-11-1993 and on suspicion collected 3 sample bottles of oil in accordance with section 10 of the Act. Subsequently, one of the sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst on 12-11-1993 for analysis and opinion. The Public Analyst opined that the sample oil was adulterated and submitted a report date 24-12-1993 which is marked as Ex.P-9. Pursuant to that in the month of August, on 26-8-1994, the Food Inspector filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad. Subsequently, on 2-9-1994 a notice as contemplated under Section 13 (2) of the Act was issued, for which the petitioner has not chosen to file any explanation requesting the Court to send the second sample to another analyst.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned public prosecutor. On perusal of the complaint and the documents marked on behalf of the complainant wherein it is alleged that the Food Inspector after dividing the oil into 3 equal parts and after following the procedure, sent one sample bottle on the next day i.e., on 12-11-1993 along with Form No.7 to the Public Analyst, Hyderabad. The remaining two parts of the sample bottles along with copies of memorandum were sent to the Director, Institute of Preventive Medicine, Hyderabad for keeping the same in safe custody. After analysis, the Public Analyst opined by his report dt 24-12-1993 that the oil was adulterated.