STATE OF M.P. Vs. VANSHRAKHAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE has come in the present appeal aggrieved by judgment of acquittal passed by Sessions Judge, Sidhi, whereby respondent was acquitted for offence under section 7(1) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. respondent was convicted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi vide Criminal Case No. 131/1981 by judgment dated March 24th, 1986 who was sentenced to undergo two months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/ - was imposed. In default of payment of fine, sentence of two months imprisonment was ordered.

(2.) PROSECUTION was launched on the basis of mustard oil kept by the accused Vanshrakhan Gupta was suspected to be adulterated by the Food Inspector Thakur Prasad Singh (PW -1), when he had inspected the shop of accused. He had given notice of Form No. 6 in the presence of witnesses and purchased 375 grams of mustard oil from accused after payment of Rs. 5.62/ - and got the receipt Ex. P/3. The sample so purchased was divided in three equal parts and kept in sealed bottles and the seal of Local Health Authority was put in the presence of witnesses and prepared the inquest Ex. P/3 of seizure.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State has submitted that it is not necessary that the public analyst should certify in handwriting in its report the fact that the seal was found intact by them of the sample which was sent for the purpose of analysis. Further submission of learned counsel for the State that the presumption under section 114, Evidence Act is available in such cases. It is submitted that mentioning in prescribed proforma even in the printed form of the facts found by the public analyst is enough compliance if the public analyst had not found seal intact, he could have scored entry in the printed form and have very well mentioned that the seal was not found intact.