SALESM GOVINDAPPA CHETTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In C. C. No. 57 of 1968 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mdanapali, the Food Inspector (Sanitary Inspector) of Madanapalli Municipality filed a complaint against S. Govindappa Chetty, alleging that the later exposed for sale Mysorepak and sold samples of it to the Food Inspector and that on analysis it was found to be adulterated because it was found to be adulterated because it was found to contain metanil yellow coaltar-dye and also to contain Kesari Dhall flour which was prohibited under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act XXXVII of 1954) and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955. After full trial the learned Magistrate found that the Mysorepak was adulterated and it was containing metanil coaltar -dye and accordingly convicted him under S. 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Ss. 7 and 2 (i) (j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act). He found that the case of adulteration was not proved on the basis of Kesari Dhall flour. He also held that the case did not fall under Section 2 (i ) (1) of the Act, and awarded a sentence of six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100.00 and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.

(2.) The accused filed Crl. A. No. 95/63 before the learned Sessions Judge, Chittor, and the latter agreed with the finding of the trial Judge that the accused had used the prohibited coaltar-dye and confirmed the conviction and sentence. The accused filed this Revision Petition.

(3.) There is a concurrent finding of the two lower courts based on convincing evidence that the accused said Mysorepak to the Food Inspector (P. W. 11 on 30-9-67 at 7-oo P.M. and that it contained metanil yellow coal-tar dye, as per the report of the Public Analyst (Ex P. 4). The correctness of that finding of a fact, is not challenged before me by the learned advocate for the accused. I see no reason to disagree with that concurrent finding of fact.