BADRI PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 7(1) read with 16(1)(a)(i) and 7(3) read with Rule 50(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the "P.F. Act") vide judgment dated 19.9.1997 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol in Criminal Case No. 669 of 1993 and sentenced with six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/ - for each count. Criminal Appeal No. 148/1997 was dismissed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol vide the judgment dated 25.6.1999. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments passed by both the Courts below the applicant has preferred the present revision. The prosecution's case in short is that, on 24.1.1993 at Village Tetka the Food Inspector Shri S.B. Nigam went to the shop of the applicant and shown his identity. On demand the applicant could not produce any licence for sale of various edible products. Thereafter, the Food Inspector proposed to take the sample of white sugar confectionery in a sealed packet and thereafter, he purchased 600 gms. of such confectionery tablets and a receipt of payment was obtained from the applicant. The sweet confectionery were distributed and divided in three packets and thereafter, kept in a dry, clean polythene packets and duly sealed. Thereafter, the slip of Local Health Authority was affixed on each of the boxes. Various memos were prepared about the procedure. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst whereas, remaining two parts were deposited in the office of Local Health Authority. The Public Analyst vide report Ex. P/10 sent the opinion that the sample was adulterated. Thereafter, the Food Inspector obtained the permission of prosecution from Deputy Director Food and Drugs Administration, Shahdol and a complaint was filed. A notice under Section 13(2) of the P.F. Act was sent to the applicant on 27.7.1993 and it was marked at Ex. P/12. Postal receipt was exhibited at P/13. However, the applicant did not apply for analysis of the sample from the Central Food Laboratory.

(2.) THE applicant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea in the case. He has stated that he was not doing any business of such confectionery etc. However, no defence evidence was adduced.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.