CHHANNOOLAL KESARWANI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Chhannoolal Kesarwani was convicted under section 16(l)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated groundnut oil by Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and to a fine of Rs. 500.00, in default of which he was to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. Against that conviction and sentence he preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur. Aggrieved by this, the present revision has been filed.

(2.) On the evidence of the Food Inspector, K.P. Gupta (P.W. 1) and the Panch witness Gorelal (P.W. 2) it has been found to be proved that the Food Inspector, Shri K.P. Gupta (P.W. 1) had purchased the sample from the petitioner. On taking of the sample the same was equally distributed in 3 clean bottles which were duly sealed, out of which one was handed over to the petitioner. In token of this the petitioner had signed the receipt (Ex. P-3) which has been signed by Gorelal (P.W. 2) also.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that Gorelal (P.W. 2) does not support the f of taking sample from petitioner's shop. A perusal of the evidence of Gorelal (P.W. 2) clearly makes out that the Food Inspector had paid the money for the oil to the petitioner in his presence. In his cross-examination he has admitted that the oil was purchased in his presence. This contention has, therefore, no merit. Learned counsel then urged that no proper seizure memo was prepared. He, however, could not point out as to what was the illegality or irregularity in any of the memos prepared by the Food Inspector, which have been put into evidence by him. That apart, on a perusal of the evidence of the Food Inspector I do not find that this contention has any merit. It was then urged that petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the Public Analyst, as he was not examined. Learned counsel rightly conceded that the report (Ex. P-4) of i he Public Analyst was admissible in evidence; but, according to him, the opinion given by him in the report is not admissible. It is not disputed that on the basis of this report and the dates given therein the oil would certainly be adulterated. He could not point out as to why the examination of the Public Analyst is necessary in this case. The report (Ex. P-4) being admissible in evidence, it could be read and used. No other point was raised before me.