SANKARLAL AGARWALA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner stands convicted under Section 16(1)(i) and (ii) read with Section 7(i)(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the 'Act') and R.50 made thereunder and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default of payment thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months, by the judgement and order passed by the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, which have been confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner, it was alleged having a grocery shop at village Tarva in the district of Balangir had been selling food articles including Mot dal meant for human consumption without obtaining a licence therefor and on September 28, 1974, the Food Inspector (P.W. 1), in the presence of P.W. 3, a peon in the office of the Primary Health Centre and P.W. 2 a watch repairer of Tarva visited the shop of the petitioner who had exposed for sale grocery articles including Mot dal and by giving due notice (Ext. 2) that the article would be sent for analysis, purchased 600 grams of Mot dal for Rs. 1.95 paise as per the receipt (Ext. 1) granted by the petitioner and in accordance with the rules, sent this article for examination by the Public Analyst who, as per the report, Ext. 4, found it to be adulterated. After obtaining the sanction order. The petitioner was prosecuted. A copy of the report of the Public Analyst had been sent to the petitioner by registered post. To bring home the charges to the petitioner, three witnesses had been examined for the prosecution including the Food Inspector. The petitioner's case was that he had a stationery and not a grocery shop for selling articles of food and the article in question was not meant for human consumption, but was meant for feeding his cattle. In his defence, he had examined one witness who had testified in support of his case. On a consideration of the evidence from the side of the prosecution, both the Courts have accepted the persecution case.

(2.) MR . S. Mohapatra for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish that the petitioner, having a grocery shop, had been selling food articles without a licence and the article in question kept aside in the outer verandah was for feeding cattle and was not an article of food meant for sale for human consumption. It has also been contended that it could not be said from the report of the Public Analyst that the article of food was adulterated and that there had been delay in examining the sample by the public Analyst causing prejudice to the petitioner as he had no reasonable opportunity to get the article examined in time at the Central Food Laboratory. Mr. Rath. The Additional Standing Counsel, has submitted that none of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner can prevail.

(3.) IF the article in question is taken as 'food' within the meaning of the Act coming under the category of pulses, it would be taken as adulterated in view of the report of the Public Analyst and regard being had to the nature of the article, some delay in examination of the article by the Public Analyst would not prejudice the case of the petitioner as it was open to him to get it examined at the Central Food Laboratory.