ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide judgment dated 5.5.1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Shahdol in Criminal Case No.531/1994, the applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i), Section 7(5) read with Rule 32 read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) and Section 14A read with Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "PF Act") and sentenced for six months RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count of the offences. The sentence was to run one by one. In Criminal Appeal No.85/1998, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge Shahdol vide judgment dated 16.8.1999 acquitted the co-accused Rakesh Kumar from all the charges, but conviction as well as the sentence directed against the present applicant was maintained. Being aggrieved with the judgments of both the Courts below, this criminal revision is preferred by the applicant.

(2.) The prosecution's case, in short, is that the Food Inspector S.P.Dubey (PW-2) on 22.3.1994 went to the shop of Rakesh Kumar situated at Village Amjhor District Shahdol along with other Food Inspectors Shri K.G.Singh and Shri V.K.Mishra. He found that the applicant was selling the various edibles from that grocery shop of the coaccused. The Food Inspector saw that 50 bags of common salt crystal were collected by the applicant and he was selling those common salt crystals. There was no information about the manufacture, packing, date etc. of these crystals. The applicant could not inform about the distributor, who sold the common salt crystals to the applicant. Thereafter the Food Inspector proposed to purchase the sample of that common salt and he took 600 gm of crystal salt from the applicant after giving the payment. The sample was divided in three parts in dry and clean polythene bags and thereafter those bags were covered with thick paper and also sealed by the slip of the Local Health Authority. The various memos were prepared about the procedure and taking the sample etc. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, whereas remaining two parts were deposited with the Local Health Authority. The Public Analyst vide its report Ex.P-23 found that the sample was adulterated. Therefore, after taking the sanction for prosecution, a complaint was filed before the concerned Magisterial Court. A notice under Section 13(2) of the PF Act was sent to both the accused persons, but they did not apply for re-examination of the sample from the Central Food Laboratory.

(3.) The applicant abjured his guilt. He took a plea that the sample was taken on Tuesday, which was holiday for the shops of village Amjhor and the shop was not open.