MAN MOHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 7(1) read with 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the "P.F. Act") vide judgment dated 1.10.1996 passed by the JMFC, Lakhanadon in Criminal Case No.920 of 1992 and sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3000/-. In Criminal Appeal No.230/1996 the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni vide judgment dated 21.3.1997 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved with aforesaid judgments passed by both the Courts below the applicant has preferred the present revision.

(2.) The prosecution's case in short is that on 19.7.1989, Food Inspector R.P. Singh (PW2) took samples of chilli powder from the shop of Raj Kumar Sharma situated at Lakhanadon. The chilli powder was prepared and packed by the present applicant and sold in the name of Shanti Grah Udyog Kendra, Jabalpur. Sample was duly sent to the Public Analyst and Public Analyst by its report Ex.P/11 found that other readings of various tests were appropriate but artificial colour was found in the sample. After getting due sanction a prosecution was initiated by the Food Inspector. The applicant has applied for analysis of the sample from the Central Food Laboratory and therefore, one part of the sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory, Gaziabad and a report was received that the sample was adulterated because test of "non-volatile ether extract" was found to be 11.4 % which was less than 12%. Thereafter, the complainant took a fresh permission from the Local Health Authority to prosecute the applicant and thereafter a fresh complaint was filed before the trial Court.

(3.) The applicant abjured his guilt. He took a specific plea that his product was affixed with Agmark and therefore, he has prepared a standard product and no adulteration was possible in that product. Due to lapse of time such type of difference in analysis could arise. However, Arvind Pathak, In-charge Chemist, Agmark Department, Jabalpur was examined as a defence witness to show the procedure relating to affixing the Agmark and duration in which sample remains useful.