BISRAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under Sec. 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dtd. 26/3/1997 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in Criminal Appeal No.94/1996 arising out of judgment dtd. 2/4/1996 passed by C.J.M., Seoni in Criminal Case No.2804/1987, whereby the applicant has been convicted under Sec. 16(1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to R.I. for 3 months with fine of Rs.500.00 in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 3 months.

(2.) According to prosecution case on 9/1/1987 Food Inspector Shri B.L. Barman (PW-1) found that applicant/accused was selling adulterated coconut oil from his grocery shop at village Belpeth, Police Station Kurai. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity to the applicant purchased 375 ml coconut oil as sample for Rs.12.90 paisa vide receipt Ex.P-8. He then kept the coconut oils in three dried, clean bottles in accordance with the prescribed rules. Thereafter the bottles were kept in airtight bags and sealed. The panchnama in this regard Ex.P-9 was prepared. Shri B.L. Barman (PW-1) sent one of the sealed bottle to the Public Analyst. He deposited the remaining two sealed bottles of sample in the office of Local Health Authority. The sample was received by Public Analyst on 15/5/1987 and its report Ex.P-13 was given on 19/6/1987. On receiving the report a notice under Sec. 13(2) along with a copy of the report Ex.P-15 of Public Analyst was sent to applicant. As per Public Analyst report Ex.P-13 sample of coconut oil was found to be technically adulterated as such the complaint was filed before C.J.M. Seoni on 26/10/1987.

(3.) Before the trial Court on behalf of the prosecution only one witness viz. B.L. Barman, Food Inspector was examined. No other witness was examined on behalf of the applicant as defence witness. Defence of the applicant is that coconut oil is not used as edible in Seoni.