RAVINDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Revision No. 209/2000, Hukumchand v. State of madhya Pradesh. Both these revisions have arisen out of the common judgment of conviction and sentence dated 3. 6. 2000 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 25/97 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri by which the conviction of the petitioners has been maintained as awarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shivpuri in Criminal Case no. 1601/91 dated 13. 3. 97 by which the petitioners were convicted under Section 16 (l) (a) (l) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter it shall be referred to as "the Act, 1954") but the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment each has been reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment each and the fine as awarded Rs. 10,000 each has been reduced to Rs. 1,000 each.

(2.) IN short, the facts of the case are that the petitioner Ravindra Singh is having food licence for selling the bakery items at shivpuri styled as "mahadev Bakery". On 16. 3. 91, Food Inspector B. S. Tomar (PW1)visited the bakery shop where "long Ki Sev" was also stored for sale. The food inspector, after usual formalities, took the sample of the aforesaid item and divided it into three packets of 400 gms each. The notice under form 6 which is Ex. P 7 was given to the petitioner Ravindra Singh. The receipt of which is Ex. P 8. In the packets, lot number and code number were not mentioned, only the date of manufacture was mentioned. In the packets, labels were affixed as per Rule 15 of the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter it shall be referred to as "the rules, 1955" ). The packets belonged to "prakash Namkeen, Indore". A notice was sent to the proprietor of "prakash Namkeen, indore" in Form No. 7 which is Ex. P 9. Panchnama Ex. P10 was prepared. The sample along with Form No. 7 was sent to the public analyst. The remaining parts of the samples were sent to the local health authority along with Form No. 7. On behalf of "prakash Namkeen, Indore" petitioner hukumchand has been designated as nominee by the manufacturer. The packet was sent to the public analyst on 16. 03. 91 along with sample of seal. The relevant documents are Ex. P11, Ex. P12 and Ex. P13. The report of the public analyst which is Ex. P15 shows that the food article was found adulterated and mis-branded.

(3.) AFTER completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The trial court framed the charge under Section 16 (1) (a) (1)of the Act, 1954 against the petitioners for selling adulterated and misbranded "sev namkeen". It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the trial court as well as the appellate court has not appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution properly and misconstrued the definition of adulteration and misbranded as defined under Section 2 of the Act, 1954 and Rule 32 (e) of the Rules, 1955. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that neither any specific standard for the contents of namkeen Sev has been prescribed in the Act nor in the Rules, therefore, the report of the public analyst Ex. P15 cannot be relied on. It is also submitted that in the report of the public analyst, the contents which are mixed were shown to be Kesari Dal but as per the notification issued by the Public Health and family Welfare Department, Bhopal dated 30. 3. 2000, Kesari Dal was prohibited for consumption and this notification had come into force on 6. 4. 2000 while the incident took place in the year 1991, at that time, prohibition of Kesari Dal was not notified by the state Government, therefore, if on the basis of Kesari Dal, the article was found to be adulterated by the public analyst, the report cannot be accepted on this count also. Similarly, regarding misbrand, the essential ingredients were not proved by the prosecution.