LINGARAJ OIL INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an accused in 2(c) C.C. Case No. 139 of 1994 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir and has approached this Court in this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. challenging the order dated 26.9.2001 passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to reconsider the order taking cognizance.

(2.) FROM the record it appears that the Food Inspector, Bolangir took sample of Refined Rice Bran Oil from accused No. 1., M/s. Rambhagat Shyamlal Agrawala, and sent the same to the Public Analyst for analysis. At the time of taking simple the accused No. 1 disclosed to the Food Inspector that in had purchased the oil vide Bill No. 43 dated 2.4.94. The sample sent to the Public analyst indicated adulteration for which the report was submitted after obtaining sanction from the C.D.M.O. for commission of offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against the petitioner and the other accused. After the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the said offence, an application was filed by the petitioner for reconsideration of the order taking cognizance referring to Section 20 -A of the Act.

(3.) ON perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the contention raised before this Court had also been raised before the learned Magistrate. Though the learned Magistrate has referred to the decision of the Apex Court, he came to hold that in the facts of the present case, the said decision has no application and accordingly rejected the application for reconsideration of the order taking cognizance. On the perusal of the lower Court records, I find that the only material available so far relating to the present petitioner is the statement of the co -accused stating that he had purchased the oil from the petitioner under Bill No. 43 dated 2.4.94. Question that arises for consideration is whether the statement of the co -accused is enough to submit a report stating that the present petitioner has also committed the offence as alleged. Section 20 -A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides as follows :