M A RASHEED Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused No. 1 in C.C. No. 16 of 1991 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. He was charged along with A-2 and A-3 and was convicted under sections 7 and 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, 'the Act') and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 months. The other accused have been acquitted of the charges. The appeal filed by the petitioner in Crl.A. No. 150 of 1992 on the file of the I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, ended in dismissal and the conviction and sentence have been confirmed. Questioning the order this Crl. Revision Case has been filed.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 21-8-91 at 12 noon the Food Inspector (P.W. 1) inspected the business premises of the petitioner, a General Stores at Mallepalli, Hyderabad, along with P.W. 2 his Attender. Sample was taken after due notice from an open gunny bag which was kept for sale. The sample was sent to the analyst and it was found that chanadal was adduced with kesari dal. The trial Court relying upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 found that the sample was adulterated and has convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above. The Appellate Court reappraised the entire evidence on record and also found that the sample purchased from the petitioner was adulterated. The contentions raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Court have been considered in detail and have been rejected.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended be fore me that no independent witnesses have been examined in the case to prove Ex.P-4, the mediator-nama for the seizure of the food article, and hence the sale of the food article by the petitioner itself is doubtful. It is to be seen that one witness has been called at the time of holding panchanama and he was also cited as a witness as L.W. 2. However, he could not be examined for the reason that he could not be traced. The Courts below have considered this aspect and held that the non-examination of this witness does not therefore vitiate the prosecution case relating to sale of food article.