PRAFULLA KUMAR MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER faced trial for an offence Under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'the Act') read with Section 7 (i) and (v) thereof for having exhibited for sale of adulterated Turmeric powder and Til oil for human consumption.

(2.) THE undisputed position is that on 16 -8 -1986 samples were collected by the Sanitary Inspector (Food) attached to Chief District Medical Officer, Phulbani in respect of Til oil, Mustard oil, Pea powder and Turmeric powder on suspicion that they were adulterated and unfit for human consumption. The samples collected were sent to the Public Analyst Orissa, who opined that the Turmeric powder and Til oil samples collected indicated adulteration. A copy of the Public Analyst's report was supplied to the petitioner.

(3.) TWO points were urged by the learned counsel for the petitio - ner, viz. - the statutory mandates of Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adul - teration Rules, 1955 (in short 'the Rules') have not been complied with, and while recording the statement of the petitioner Under Section 315, Cr.P.C. requisite materials were not brought to his notice and thereby he has been prejudiced. The learned counsel for the State, however, submits that the offence involved is so heinous that these technicalities should not receive any consideration.