DILLIP KUMAR AGARWALLA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner faced trial for contravention of the provision of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act') and was convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bargarh. The appellate authority (Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur) upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to three months rigorous imprisonment, but maintained the fine of Rs. 500/ -, with default sentence of seven days.

(2.) IN gist, the prosecution case is that on 28.5.1981 Petitioner failed to produce the licence required for manufacturing food articles, covered under Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules'). Some samples of food articles were also collected for analysis on the suspicion that those were adulterated, but on analysis, they were found confirming to be the prescribed standard. Therefore, ultimately prosecution was launched against the Petitioner for manufacturing food articles without obtaining a licence.

(3.) MR . Mohanty in support of the Petitioner's case has strenuously urged that the Petitioner had started business a few days prior to the inspection and it is common knowledge that licence is not issued the moment it is applied for. The very fact that the licence was applied for and was granted for a period covering the date of inspection, should have weighed with the learned appellate Judge. Instead of taking a pragmatic view of the matter, he has passed the order mechanically. It was also submitted that the Petitioner was harping under a bona fide belief that after the licence is applied for he was entitled to carryon business activities. The licence has been issued and the same has also been renewed from time to time as is evident from the endorsements made therein. It was also submitted that though absence of a licence is made punishable under the Act, yet rigours should not be so onerous as to attract custodial sentence. The very fact that the Petitioner had started his business a few days prior to the inspection and was new to profession should have also been considered by the learned appellate authority.