JAGANNATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER assails the judgment of conviction and order of sentences passed by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rairakhol and upheld in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur. The conviction was under Section 16(1)(a)(i) and 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the 'Act').

(2.) PROSECUTION case in its essentials is that on 15.3.1986 the Petitioner was found selling lozenges to different shopkeepers at Rairakhol in Sambalpur district for human consumption, the Food Inspector, Sambalpur suspected that the articles sold were adulterated, he inspected the articles and asked the Petitioner to produce licence which he was required to take under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short 'the Rules') which the latter could not produce, he served a notice on the Petitioner expressing his intention to purchase the lozenges for analysis, three packets of lozenges each containing 500 grams were sold by the Petitioner to the Food Inspector the purchased articles were labelled and sealed in three packets on which specimen signatures of the Petitioner were taken, one sealed sample packet was sent to the public Analyst. Orissa for analysis after observing requisite formalities, the report of the Public Analyst was received by the Chief District Medical Officer (C.D.M.O.) on 1.5.1986 indicating that the sample was adulterated, prosecution report along with relevant documents were placed before the C.D.M.O., for consent to launch prosecution, on receipt of which prosecution report was submitted in Court along with all relevant documents, copy of the Public Analyst's report was sent to the Petitioner by registered post which was returned without delivery and subsequently served by special messenger .

(3.) BEFORE the trial Court -four witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case while the Petitioner examined none. Several documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. The Sanitary Inspector attached to the C.D.M.O's office was examined as P.W. 1 to prove certain documents, while the complainant Food Inspector was examined as P.W. 2, the peon attached to the C.D.M.O's office was examined as P.W. 3, who stated to have witnessed the seizure while P.W. 4 is an independent' witness who was stated to have witnessed the seizure, and the procedure adopted for effecting seizure of food articles.