DAMODAR PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner stands convicted under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for selling adulterated Jira, and has been sentenced there under to undergo R.I. for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - in default to undergo R.I. for one month.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, is that adulterated Jira was stored for sale in the shop of the Petitioner. P.W. 1, the Food Inspector of the Bhadrak Notified Area Council, purchased, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, 300 grams of the said Jira on payment of Rs. 1.40 paisa from the Petitioner on 15 -10 -1966 as per Cash memo (Ext. 2). The said Jira, as per the report (Ex. 3) of the Public Analyst, was found to be adulterated, not being in conformity with the required speciations.

(3.) THE contention raised by Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that the conviction of the Petitioner cannot be sustained as on the evidence on record, properly construed, it is established that the Jira in question was not meant for sale, and there was no sale of the said Jira to the Food Inspector as the Petitioner was neither the owner nor had he the authority to Bell or dispose of the same in any manner to anybody, other than returning it to the owner who had kept the same for the time being in the custody of the Petitioner.