SHIV PRASAD DUBEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant was convicted for commission of offence under Section 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) and Section 14A read with Section 16(1C) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1954") vide judgment dated 2.11.1996 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewa in Criminal Case No.857/1992 and sentenced with six months' RI with fine of Rs.1000/ - and one month's RI with fine of Rs.500/ -. In Criminal Appeal No.83/1996, the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa vide judgment dated 21.9.1999 dismissed the appeal in toto. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments, this criminal revision is preferred by the applicant.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, is that Shri Shesh Prasad Dubey (PW -1) was authorized as Food Inspector in the Flying Squad for the Rewa Division at the relevant time. On 24.1.1992 he went along with other Food Inspectors to the Village Chaakghat. He visited the shop of the applicant situated at Village Chaakghat. He found that the applicant was selling various articles including the confectionery candies (hereinafter it would be referred to as "sugar candies"). The complainant gave his introduction to the applicant and proposed to purchase 900 gms of hard boiled sugar candies kept in one glass jar. Thereafter he purchased 900 gms coloured sugar candies and thereafter the purchased sugar candies were apportioned in three equal parts and each part was duly sealed in a polythene bag. The slips given by the Local Health Authority were also pasted on the packets. The memo of entire procedure was prepared and thereafter one part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst and it was found that the sample did not confirm to the standard and hence it was found adulterated. The applicant could not show the name of the vendor etc. and also batch number and manufacturing date about those sugar candies, and therefore a complaint was filed for various offences of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. A notice under Section 13 of the Act was also given but the

(3.) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the prosecution evidence convicted and sentenced the present applicant as mentioned above whereas the appeal preferred by the applicant was also dismissed in toto.