MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner has been convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and sentenced to undergo R. I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000.00 with default sentence. The conviction and sentence have been affirmed by the Sessions Court in appeal. Hence this revision.

(2.) Revision petitioner was running a Kirana Shop. PW 3, Food Inspector exercising jurisdiction over Pithora block visited the shop, disclosed his identify and desired to purchase Gur from the shop for the purpose of analysis, purchased the sample of Gur and dealt with the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. A part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who reported that the sample did not conform to the standards prescribed and was, therefore, adultered. A copy of the report with intimation was forwarded to revision petitioner, after the Food Inspector lodged a complaint. Revision petitioner denied his guilt. The two Courts below on an appreciation of the evidence produced by PW 3 and the two other witnesses and the documentary evidence, upheld the prosecution case.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has raised only one contention in the course of his arguments. The contention is that PW 3's status as duly appointed Food Inspector has not been established. I may straightway mention that this point was not urged before the Courts below.