DHANRAJ GUPTA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the appellate judgment/order passed by the Sessions Judge, Sundar garb, in Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1992, confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bonai, in 2(c) C. C. Case No. 135 of 1990 under section 16(1) (a) and (c) read with section 7 (iii) and (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and also Rule 50 of the Rules framed thereunder.

(2.) THE factual matrix as narrated in the judgment of the courts below is as follows: On 21 2 1990 at about 9 a. m., the Food Inspector, Sundargarh (p. w. 1) had visited the grocery shop of the accused petitioner who was having his business in the name and style of 'Agarwala Store' situated at Koida market. While p. w. 1, the Food Inspector, reached the petitioner's shop, the petitioner in hot haste ran away from the shop without allowing the Food Inspector to draw sample or purchase food articles. The Food Inspector frantically searched for witnesses from that locality, but when no one was prepared to be witness to seizure, he, therefore, invited p. ws. 2 and 3 to the spot. All of them had waited for a long time, but when the petitioner did not come, they had no other option but to leave the shop. In the result, no sample could be drawn, nor any food article could be purchased. P. w. 1 suspected Arhar Dal and Mustard Oil might have been adulterated. After coming to the office, he had then sent notice in Form No. IV to the petitioner for production of licence to deal with food articles. Notwithstanding receipt of notice, when the petitioner did not produce the licence. Prosecution Report was filed before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bonai, which was registered as 2(c) C. C. Case No. 135 of 1990 under section 16(1)(a) and (c) read with section 7 (iii) and (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

(3.) SECTION 10 of the Act empowers a Food Inspector to take samples of any article of food from any person selling such article. Section 11 provides that whenever the Food Inspector takes a sample of food for analysis, he shall give notice in writing then and there of his intention to have it so analysed to the person from whom he has taken the sample. In this particular case, it is no doubt true that the prosecution was unable to prove that the food articles in question were adulterated, as there was no such occasion since the accused petitioner allegedly ran away from the shop leaving a small child there. Mr. Kanungo, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has strongly urged that there are ample evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner had not run away, nor he was the owner of the shop. However, in view of the finding arrived at by both the courts below, I am unable to accept the contention that the petitioner was not the owner of the shop.