SHIVRAJ BANG Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in C.C.No. 34 of 1991 has filed the present revision petition against the orders of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl.A.No. 186 of 1992 confirming the conviction and sentence given by the VII Metropolitan Magistrate for the offence committed under Section 7(i) & (v) and 2 (ia) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this case are that the petitioner herein who was an accused in C.C.No. 34 of 1991 v, as dealing in edible oils under the name and style of Ranga Nath Oil Depotat Jawaharnagar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. At about 1.00p.m. on 26-6-1991, the Food Inspector i.e.,P.W.l along with Panch witnesses P.Ws. 3 & 4 visited the Oil Depot belonging to the petitioner and found about 62 open tins containing 15kgs of groundnut oil for sale. Having suspected that the said oil is adulterated, P.W.I purchased 450 gms of oil by paying an amount of Rs. 15.10 towards the value of the oil.Thereafter,he got the oil divided into three parts and having sealed the bottles by following the procedure prescribed under the Act, forwarded one bottle to Public Analyst for report. The analyst by his report Ex.P-16 dt.2-8-1991 held that the sample does not conform to the standards of but yro refractometer reading and red units in respect of halphens test. It contains castor oil and cotton seed oil and is therefore adulterated.

(3.) From the record it is seen mat there was some correspondence between the Director and the Public Analyst and ultimately the Chief Public Analyst by another report dated 7-11-1991 i.e., Ex.P-20 opined that the sample contans13% of castor oil and there is no methodology for the estimation of percentage of castor oil in admixture of oils. On the basis of the second analyst report by proceedings dt. 5-11-1991 which is marked as Ex.P-19, the Director gave permission to the Food Inspector to launch prosecution against the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short "the Act"). It seems mat there is a charge in me Food Inspector by that time and ultimately, P.W.2 filed the complaint be fore the Magistrate. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 17 (ia) & 2(ia) (a) of the Act and ultimately convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 /-,in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 16(1) (a) of the Act. On an appeal filed by the petitioner, the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge by order dt. 18-3-1993 confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. In the present revision petitionSri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised the following contentions. Though admittedly the Director gave permission to the Food Inspector to launch the prosecution against the petitioner on the basis of the second report Ex.P-20 dt. 7-11-1991 given by the Chief Public Analyst while giving a notice to the petitioner as required under Section 13(2) of the Act wherein the accused is informed of the result of the analysis of the sample purchased by P.W.1 the first analyst report Ex.P-16 dt. 2-8-1991 was enclosed. He was also informed that if he so desires he can make an application to the Court within a period often days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the oil kept with the Health authority analysed by the Central Laboratory. As such, the entire proceedings are vitiated. P.W.2 who filed the complaint in the Court cannot be treated as a Food Inspector authorised to file the complaint as the person appointed him as Food Inspector on 5-12-1990 is not the Director on that date, and on that ground also prosecution is vitiated. Thirdly, the plea of warranty is raised under Section 14 of the Act, in the light of the evidence given by D.W.2 who is said to be an Account working in the company which sold the stocks to the petitioner.