SURISETTI APPA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted by the trial Court of the offence punishable under section 16 (1) and section 7 read with section 2 (ix , (j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and rule 29 of the Rules framed there urder, and sentenced to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. The accused went up in appeal before the Court of Session, West Godavari Division at Eluru against his conviction and sentence, and the learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 9th August, 1972 at about 10 A.M. the Food Inspector (P.W.1) of Eluru Municipality visited the Kirana Shop of the accused which is situated in the 16th Ward of Eluru Municipality, along with P.Ws. 2 and 3 and found 25 kgs. of redgram dhall in the shop which was exposed for sale. He served a notice (Ex.P-2) on the accused in Form VI and purchased 600 grams of redgram dhall from the petitioner for Re. 1-50, and obtained a receipt therefor. The sample was then divided into there equal parts and was kept in three empty clean dry bottles. The bottles were duly corked, sea'ed and labelled. One bottle was given to the petitioner, another bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, and the third one was retained by the Food Inspector with him for presenting it in Court. The Public Analyst was of the opinion that the sample was misbranded in that it contained artificial water, soluble yellow colouring matter derived from coaltar prohibited under rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.Code the petitioner had stated that he purchased the redgram dhall from Burle Hanumantha Rao, a wholsale dealer at Eluru who has been examined as D.W.I. The relevant cash bill dated 20th July, 1972 also was produced by the accused.

(3.) In this revision, Mr. Kolanda Reddy, the learned Advocate for the petitioner brings to my notice the judgment dated 13th September, 1974 of my learned brother, Chennakesav Reddy, J. in Crl. R.C. Nos. 699 and 617 of 1973 to show that the learned Judge had given the benefit of section 19 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to the accused in similar circumstances. I was taken through the judgment. With respect to the learned Judge, I disagree with the conclusion arrived at by him. In that case, the plea of the accused was that he had purchased the green gram dhall from another wholesaler, viz-, Uppala Satyanarayana Murthi, and he had sold it in the same form. The learned Judge, on the basis of this statement held that the petitioner was entitled to the protection of section 19 (2). I regret I cannot agree. In cases where the accused only plead that they have purchased gram dhall from some distributor or wholesaler without a written warranty from him are not entitled to the protection under section 19 (21. Section 19 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides as follows :-