BHABA SAGAR PANIGRAHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this Criminal Revision assails the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2 of 1993 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bolangir confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir In 2(c) C.C. No. 75 of 1989/T. R, No. 919 of 1989. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo R.I. for further period of one month.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that on receiving a complaint made by one Basanta Kumar Behera and others of Chantipadar, the Food Inspector proceeded to the said place with a peon of the office of the C.D.M.O. Bolangir, namely Antabal Majhi on 13-6-1989 and inspected the alleged shop where the petitioner was present. Against order of S.K. Mishra, Addl. Sessions Judge, Bolangir, D/- 15-1-1996 After revealing his Identity to the petitioner and demanding the food licence, the petitioner could not produce the same and disclosed that the shop belongs to his son who was an accused in this case and has been acquitted by the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir. The Food Inspector, Bolangir thereafter served a notice in writing to the petitioner to get the food licence and in presence of witnesses, verified the food articles, stored for human consumption and suspecting the Besan and Mustard oil to be adulterated also served a notice in writing in Form VI of the Act disclosing his intention to take sample of Besan and Mustard oil for analysis and purchased 600 grams of Besan and 375 grams of Mustard Oil on making payment for which the petitioner granted money receipt. It is further alleged that as per the provisions of the Act, the said samples were sent for analysis to the Public Analyst and on receiving the said report, copies thereof were sent to the petitioner by the C.D.M.O., Bolangir and finding the sample of Besan to be adulterated, a prosecution report was lodged before the learned S.D.J.M, Bolangir. The learned trial Court on consideration of the materials available on record and after trial of the case, passed an order of conviction and sentence against the petitioner as stated earlier. The other co-accused was, however, acquitted.

(3.) The petitioner thereafter being aggrieved preferred Criminal Appeal No. 14/2 of 1993, which was heard and disposed of by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bolangir by judgment dated 15-1-1996, confirming the conviction and sentence and dismissing the appeal.