V NAGABHUSHANAM Vs. STATE OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against the judgment in Crl. A. No. 70/87 on the file of the III Addl. District & Sessions Judge Chittoor at Tirupati. The Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of A-2 for an offence under the Food Adulteration Act. Aggrieved by it the present appeal is filed.

(2.) In this revision Sri Prahlada Reddy contends that the so-called variation in the free fatty acid in the groundnut oil sample is very minimal and this could have been the result of the delay of nearly 2 months in analysing the sample. He contends that when the groundnut oil sample is stored and exposed to light and air the oil deteriorates and the free fatty acid increases. He relies upon certain judgments and passages in certain text books in support of his argument.

(3.) The short facts of the case arc that A-1 and A-2 are father and son. In their joint names they own a retail provision shop situated in Door No. 1-2-203 in Bhagavan Mahaveer Road at Tirupati. A-2 is actually conducting the business. His father A-1 lives at Kaligiri far away from the shop premises. On 22-12-81 at 12-30 p. m. the Food Inspector after complying with the formalities as per rules and the Act took a sample of groundnut oil from an open tin containing 7 kgs. of oil. The sample was duly analysed by the Public Analyst on 5-2-82 and the public Analyst sent the report saying that the sample contains percentage of fatty acid in excess of the prescribed limit and therefore the sample is adulterated. On this basis the court came to the conclusion that the accused comitted an offence punishable under Sec. 16 (1) and 7 read with Sec. 2 (i) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act The trial court came to the concusion that the case fails against A-l as he is not actually conducting the business in the shop and as no notice was issued to him under Sec 13 (2) of the Act. He convicted A-2 for an offence under Sec. 16 (1A) (i) read with Sec. 2 (ia) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to suffer R. I. for 6 months and also sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for 3 months. The appellate court confirmed the above conviction and sentence.