NIDHI SAHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner assails the conviction awarded and sentence imposed by the learned Sub -Divisional, Judicial Magistrate, Boudh, upheld in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani. Accusations leading to the trial of the Petitioner in short, are that on 27 -9 -1985 he had exhibited for sale several food articles for human consumption; the Food Inspector, Phulbani suspecting them to be adulterated, after complying with the requirements prescribed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'the Act') and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short' the Rules') collected sample of Til oil and Atta, parts of each of the samples were sent to the Public Analyst, Orissa who opined that the samples of food articles did not conform to the requisite standards and were adulterated. After obtaining written consent from the Chief District Medical Officer, Phulbani, prosecution was hunched.

(2.) TWO witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case, while the Petitioner who took the plea that he was not a vendor of food articles, examined one witness in support of his stand. On evaluation of the evidence and materials on record, he was found guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -, in default rigorous Imprisonment for ten days more. The matter was carried in appeal, but the learned appellate Judge declined to interfere.

(3.) ON considering the facts of the present case, I feel that it would be appropriate to remit the matter back to the trial Court to the stage at which prosecution was closed. The trial Court shall examine the Petitioner again under Section 313 of the Code and dispose of the case afresh. The order of conviction and sentence are set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court for disposal ill accordance with law.