(1.) The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') stood prosecuted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, 'the Act') for allegedly dealing in food articles without any valid licence as required under rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short, 'the rules') and for his having exposed adulterated 'Arhar dal' for sale for human consumption. The learned S.D.J.N., Titilegarh who tried the case, came to hold that the accused was selling adulterated 'Arhar dal' without any licence and consequently convicted and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer further imprisonment for one month.
(2.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the accused approached the appellant court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh on evaluation of the evidence, maintained the lower court's findings and dismissed the appeal. The accused has, therefore, approached this Court by challenging the judgements and orders of both the Courts below.
(3.) The prosecution case may shortly be stated thus :