BADRIDAS CHANDAK Vs. PURNA CHANDRA MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner faced trial for commission of an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, the 'Act') for alleged contravention of Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 1955 (in short, the 'Rules'). It was alleged that he was selling food articles without requisite licence. Though there was an allegation of selling adulterated food articles, the same was not accepted by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special), Cuttack (in short, the 'ACJM'). For the contravention of Rule 50 of the Rules petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-. In default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. In appeal, conviction and sentence were maintained by the learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack.

(2.) Background facts as presented by prosecution stated in brief are as follows :

(3.) According to Mr. S. C. Lal, learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner was not responsible or liable for any information. Further food article 'lozenges' is not one of the articles enumerated in the Rules in respect of which licence was to be taken. It is pointed out that Rule 50 at the relevant time was different from the present form. Walls present Rule is all pervasive, at the point of time the alleged violation took place, licence was required in respect of only a few items as enumarated in the Rule itself. It is therefore, stand of learned counsel for petitioner that no licence was required. It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the occurrence took place more than a decade back, and considering that except and nature of infraction sentence as awarded is harsh. Learned counsel for the prosecution on the other hand submitted that the expression confectionary', 'sweetment' and 'savoury' as appearing in clause (m) of Rule 50, at the relevant time clearly takes care of food article "lozenges". The entry is broad enough to take care of the article. So far as sentence is concerned, it is stated that food adulteration is a social offence and therefore, no ramission in sentence is called for.