UMA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners and one other were tried on charge u/S. 7(1)(3) read with Section 16(1)(a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter the Act) in Criminal Case No. 229/88 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhatarpur, who acquitted one accused and convicted the petitioners on the said charge and sentenced them to six months R. I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- which is the statutory minimum punishment provided in the Act. The petitioners went up in appeal. The same being Criminal Appeal No. 10/89 was dismissed by IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur on 3-4-92 against which the present revision has been filed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioners were carrying Ghee in a Bus which was suspected to be adulterated. Therefore, the Food Inspector after serving notice of his intention to take sample out of it took the sample in accordance with the procedure laid down and the same was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. Public Analyst's report is Ex. P-10 to the effect that the sample did not confirm with the standard of purity laid down under the Act. The defence version was that the sample was not meant for sale. It was being carried for personal use at the time of an impending marriage. The two Courts below held the evidence of the Food Inspector as reliable. It was also held that the two accused from whose possession the sample was taken were not entitled to acquittal on the ground of non-compliance of the requirement of Section 13(2) of the Act read with Rule 9-A of Rules framed thereunder as the said Rule was directory and not mandatory. Reliance was placed in this behalf on Food Inspector, Nagarpalika, Mandsaur v. Devilal 1985 Jab LJ 195, a Full Bench judgement of this Court.

(3.) The restricted jurisdiction of Court while exercising revisional powers is too well known to be delineated here. Therefore, the attempt on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court should reappreciate the evidence of the Food Inspector and come to a different finding than what the two Courts below have held cannot be accepted. As revisional Court this Court is competent to correct any jurisdictional error or perversity in appreciation of evidence which may have resulted in miscarriage of justice, but it is not empowered to sit as a Court of appeal and reappreciate the evidence on record. Admittedly the evidence of Food Inspector is there and has been held to be reliable by the two Courts below and since no perversity or unreasonableness in the approach of the subordinate Court could be demonstrated, it will have to be accepted that their conclusions as to the reliability of the said witness stands concluded.