SATYANARAYAN GUPTA Vs. MOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.3.86 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, in Cr. appeal No. 62/84 whereby the conviction and sentence of six months R.I. u/s 7(1)/16(1)(a)(i) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (For short 'the Act') and fine of Rs.1,000/ - awarded to the respondent by J.M.F.C. Ujjain, in criminal case No.1120/80, was set -aside.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that Food Inspector Satyanaryan Gupta on 4.4.80 found the respondent -accused having stored ground -nut oil for sale in his grocery shop at Ujjain. The Food Inspector gave him notice and purchased 375 gms. of oil and prepared three samples according to the procedure prescribed by provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (For short 'the Rules'). He sealed all the three samples and sent one sample alongwith memorandum No. 7 to the Public Analyst and two samples to Local Health Authority and also sent memorandum No.7 with specimen impression of the seal used to seal the sample in a separate sealed envelope to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst found the sample adulterated. A copy of the report of the Public Analyst and notice of the prosecution was sent to the respondent and thereafter complaint was filed. The learned J.M.F.C. found the appellant guilty u/s 7(1)/16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and sentenced as stated above. The respondent was acquitted in appeal. Hence, this appeal by the complainant.

(3.) I considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for appellant and perused the record. The only question that arises for determination is whether the learned A.S.J. committed error in acquitting the respondent holding that the Food Inspector did not comply with the previsions of Rule 14 of the Rules and section 11 of the Act in not making the bulk of ground -nut oil homogeneous -by stirring it before taking sample. The Food Inspector Satyanarayan Gupta did not state that before taking sample, he stirred the ground -nut oil stored in the shop of the respondent for sale and made it homogeneous. The learned A.S.J. putting reliance on the decision of this Court in case of Dharamchand v. Food Inspector. 1985 F.A.J. 455 (M.P.) held that the sample collected was not representative sample and acquitted the appellant. In my opinion, the learned A.S.J. rightly held that the sample taken from oil stored for sale in the shop of the respondent without stirring and making it homogeneous, was not representative sample and there was clear violation of Rule 14 of the Rules. Under such circumstances, the acquittal passed by A.S.J. cannot be said to be illegal. In the result, the appeal fails and it is dismissed.