TULSIRAM MEHTA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the cr. PC, the petitioner has challenged order dated 25-11-04 passed by the 12th additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in Criminal Appeal No. 485/03 convicting the accused under Section 16 (l) (a) read with Section 7 (1) of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brevity) and sentencing the accused for six months Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, an additional Rigorous Imprisonment for one month.

(2.) BRIEF facts as alleged by the prosecution are that on the date of incident, i. e. , 12-8-91 at about 9. 15 a. m. , the Food Inspector of Municipal corporation, Indore Shri M. J. Ansari (P. W. 1) inspected the shop named sitaram Dhudh Dahi Bhandar at Janta Quarter, Nanda Nagar, Indore doubting that the owner of the shop did not possess valid and legal licence under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, took a sample of the curd after filling in form No. 6 and giving notice to the shop owner, the Food Inspector purchased 600 gms. of curd prepared from the cow milk by payment of Rs. 7. 20 and obtaining proper receipt, the sample was then divided into three equal parts and filled into three dry and clean bottles. After adding 15-16 drops of formalin into each, the bottles were duly sealed and thereafter, a Panchanama was prepared in front of the witnesses and the signatures of the accused and witnesses were obtained and a copy of Form No. 7 was sent (along with) to the Public Analyst at bhopal and another copy of Form No. 7 along with seal impression were deposited with the Local Public Health Authority, Indore and after obtaining the report of the Public Analyst and finding that curd was adulterated, the prosecution was launched. After obtaining sanction from the Dy. Director, food and Medicine Administration, the complaint was lodged before the competent Court.

(3.) THE accused Tulsiram abjured his guilt and also denied that he did not possess a proper licence, the Trial Court, however, on consideration came to a conclusion that the accused Tulsiram was guilty as charged and sentenced him as herein above stated. The Appellate Court also upheld the conviction as well as the sentence passed by the Trial Court and hence, the present revision.