JAIRAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant Jairam has been convicted under section 7 read with section 16(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs.1000.00 by the Trial Court against which an unsuccessful appeal was filed. Hence, this revision.

(2.) Short facts leading to this revision petition are as under : According to the prosecution case, applicant Jairam is carrying on grocery shop in village Birul Bazar, Tahsil Multai, District Betul. It is stated that on the day of occurrence i.e. on 14.2.1979, R.P. Sharma, Food Inspector went to the shop of the applicant and seized turmeric powder. A notice was given to him vide Annexure P-3 and receipt Ext. P-4 was also given to him for purchasing 450 grams turmeric powder for Rs. 450. Seizure memo was accordingly prepared vide Annexure P-5. The seized turmeric powder was sent to Public Analyst for analysis and it was found adulterated vide Analysts report Ext. P-10. The applicant was charge-sheeted for the alleged offence punishable under section 7 read with section 16(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The trial tame to an end resulting in applicants conviction as aforesaid. Against the judgment of conviction and sentence, the applicant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court which failed. Hence, the present revision has been filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel Shri Dutt, Advocate appearing for the applicant contended that the applicant is not a "Dealer". He has not sold the turmeric powder to the Food Inspector and no sample was taken from him. He also contended that no question was put to the applicant under section 313 of the Code Criminal Procedure to the effect that the seized turmeric powder was sub-standard, and, therefore, the conviction and sentence as awarded by the Magistrate First Class and maintained by the appellate Court, suffer from legal infirmities.