P SATYANARAYAN PATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the decision of the learned second Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur upholding the conviction Under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act') and the sentence passed thereunder, the accused -petitioner has preferred this revision.

(2.) IN short, the prosecution case is that on 12 -7 -1988 at about 12 noon the Food Inspector (PW 3) along with the Sanitary Inspector (PW1), Vigilance Sub -Inspector (PW 2) and the Vigilance Inspector (PW 4) went to the grocery shop of the accused situated at village Dengapodar and made statutory, purchase of Suji, Chana Dal (Bengal gram) and tank refined oil for the purpose of analysis. Each of the samples was divided into three equal parts and all the parts were kept separately in different containers which was duly sealed. One sample from each of the aforesaid articles was sent to the Public Analyst for the purpose of examination and the other two samples from each of the articles were deposited in the office of the Chief District Medical Officer. The Public Analyst reported that while the sample of Suji sent to him was not adulterated, the sample of Chana Dal was adulterated. In respect of the sample of tank refined oil, he opined that on the label of the tin from which the sample had been taken, the name of the vegetable oil from which the refined oil had been manufactured was not mentioned although the same was required to be mentioned under item A 17. 15 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (for short, the Rules'). After receipt of such reports from the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector sent copies thereof to the accused with the intimation that he was at liberty to ask for sending another sample of Chana Dal and tank refined oil to the Central Food Laboratory tor analysis (yide Ext. 10) and ultimately submitted prosecution report after obtaining written consent from the Chief District Medical Officer.

(3.) THE prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined 4 witnesses who have already been introduced above and on a consideration of their evidence the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused for his sale of Chana Dal to the Food Inspector. He however, came to hold that since on the label of the tin from which the sample of tank refined oil was taken there was no mention of the name of the vegetable oil from which the refined oil had been manufactured the accused contravened the provision of item A 17. 15 of Appendix B to the Rules and accordingly he convicted him Under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default, to undergo rigorous imprison - ment for a further period of one month. This order of conviction and sentence having been confirmed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in appeal, the present revision has been filed.