PARMANAND SAHU Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant No. 2 was convicted for the offence punishable under section 7(1) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter it will be referred to as the 'PF Act') vide judgment dated 25.4.1992 passed by the Special Municipal Magistrate, Jabalpur in criminal case No. 2694/1990 and sentenced for 6 months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. In criminal appeal No. 36/1992, the learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur vide judgment dated 24.6.1999 dismissed the appeal filed by the applicants in toto. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both the Courts below, the applicants have preferred the present revision. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the Food Inspector Shri Hardayal Dubey (P.W. 1) who was authorized to take sample in his jurisdiction within the district Jabalpur, went to the shop of the applicants on 21.11.1980. He found that the applicant No. 2 was selling the various sweets in the shop. He asked to take sample of the sweet (Laddoo) and therefore, he purchased 1500 gms of Laddoos from the applicant No. 2. The cost of Laddoos was paid to the applicant No. 2 and a receipt was obtained. Purchased Laddoos were divided into three parts and duly packed in polythene bags. After due packing, the seal of the local health authority was also affixed. 20 drops of formalin was also added in each packet of the sample before its packing. Thereafter, one part of the sample was sent to the public analyst and remaining two parts of the sample were deposited in the office of the local health authority. The public analyst vide its report dated 31.12.1998 (Ex. P/11) found that the sample was adulterated because the colour Metanil yellow was used in those Laddoos. Thereafter, due permission was taken for prosecution from the Deputy Director, Food and Drug Administration, Jabalpur. A complaint was filed before the concerned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and a notice under section 13(2) of the PF Act was given to the applicants.

(2.) THE applicants abjured their guilt. The applicant No. 2 did not take any specific plea in the matter but, he has stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter. However, no defence evidence was adduced.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the revision, the applicant No. 1 Sonelal has expired.