BHOPALNATH SAHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He was sentenced to six month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, in default rigorous imprisonment for three months by the learned Addl. District Magistrate (Judicial), Cuttack. The sentence was varied in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and while maintaining the sentence of fine, he vacated the sentence of imprisonment.

(2.) THE petitioner is the owner of Jaleswar restaurant located within the town of Cuttack. At about noon on 19.1.1966, the Food Inspector found within the shop some sweets - an article of food - for human consumption stored for sale. The Food Inspector purchased 1,500 grams of the said sweets on payment of money, divided the said sweets into three equal parts and packed them in three bottles. The bottles were sealed in the presence of witnesses as also the vendor and one of them was sent for analysis. The Public Analyst reported that the food was adulterated as there was prohibited colouring material added to it. Upon due sanction the petitioner along with his salesman who had actually effected the sale was prosecuted. The salesman was found absconding and, therefore, after cognisance was taken, the two cases were separated.

(3.) THE prosecution evidence which has been accepted in the courts below is not challenged. The report of the Public Analyst (Ext. 5) and the evidence of the three witnesses examined for the prosecution leaves no scope for taking a different view on the factual aspect of the case. I would accordingly hold that the prosecution has established that the petitioner was the proprietor of the Jaleswar restaurant from where on the relevant date, the Food Inspector had purchased the sweets in question which is found to be adulterated having been mixed with prohibited colouring material.