STATE OF ORISSA Vs. RAJ KUMAR AGRAWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State in this appeal has called in question the order of acquittal passed by learned J.M.F.C., Bissam Cuttack in II (C) C.C Case No. 08 of 1996 (T.R. No. 414 of 1996) acquitting the respondent No. 1 who is the proprietor of M/s. Ganga Jamuna Store which has been shown as respondent No. 2 of the charge under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It may be stated that right from the prosecution report till this Court, the mistake has remained in showing the proprietary concern as an accused and therefore now it is simply referred to as the respondents.

(2.) Prosecution case is that on 09.01.1996 around 11.00 am, Food Inspector, Raygada, P.W. 1 had been to the shop of respondent No. 2 and found the articles of food such as edible oil, besan, harad dal etc. to have been exposed for sale for human consumption. He suspected the harad dal, besan and mustard oil to be adulterated. So, serving due notice in Form No. VI, expressing the intention to purchase those food articles for their analysis by the public analyst, he purchased 750 grams of harad dal, 375 grams of mustard oil and 750 grams of besan on payment of price. It is stated that P.W. 1 thereafter divided each of the purchase food items in three parts in equal proportion and then kept those in empty, clean and dry glass bottles. He further packed and sealed those observing required formalities in accordance with the provisions of the rules. It is also stated that one part of the samples of the each item of the food articles as above were sent to the public analyst along with the memorandum containing specimen impression of the seal used for the purpose of sealing by registered parcels. Also copies of such memorandums as enclosed were separately sent to the public analyst by registered post. The public analyst reported the harad dal and besan to be adulterated being not in conformity with the standard as prescribed in the rules. The harad dal has been found to be adulterated for the presence of non-permitted colouring material i.e., metanil yellow and the besan has been found to be adulterated for containing khesari starches which is prohibited for sale under the rule. On receipt of public analyst report, P.W. 1 placed the matter before the Local Health Authority, CDMO for according written consent as required under Section 20 of the Act. The same having been given, the prosecution came to be launched. After institution of the prosecution, the copies of the report of the public analyst were sent to the respondent by registered post with AD and is said to have been received.

(3.) From the side of the prosecution two witnesses have been examined i.e., the Food Inspector as P.W. 1 and his Peon, P.W. 2. Documents of course has been admitted in evidence from their side right from the notice for purchase of the food articles and other documents prepared by P.W. 1 and also those of the Office of Local Health Authority. The defence has examined one witness.