STATE OF ORISSA Vs. MUNADHAR AGRAWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24- 5-1989 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Titilagarh in 2(c) C.C. Case No. 37 of 1987/T.R. No. 95 of 1988 acquitting the respondent of the offence under Section 16(l)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, "the Act").

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the accused-respondent was running a retail grocery shop in the name and style of M/s. Rajendra Stores at Hatpada, Saintala, in the district of Bolangir, where he used to store edible oils, cereals, pulses, sugar, spices, dust tea, etc., for sale. On 28-7-1987 at about 11.00 a.m. the Food Inspector of Titilagarh inspected the said shop in presence of the accused-respondent and witnesses. On demand, the accused-respondent could not produce the food licence, as required under the Act. While verifying the different food articles stored for sale for human consumption, the Food Inspector suspected the Mahua oil and mustard oil kept in open tins to be adulterated and served notice on the accused-respondent disclosing his intention to take sample of the Mahua oil and mustard oil. Thereafter, he purchased 375 grams of each of the oils and obtained money receipt from the accusedrespondent. He divided the sample oils into three equal parts and kept each part in a clean dry glass bottle, closed the bottle with stopper and made it air tight with wax, wrapped up the mouth of the bottle with thick paper fastened with thread and sealed the same. One sample bottle of Mahua oil and one sample bottle of mustard oil were sent for chemical examination by the Public Analyst, who, on examination, opined that the sample Mahua oil was adulterated and the sample mustard oil conformed the standard prescribed under the Act. On 28-10-1987, the Food Inspector placed the notice copy, money receipt, memorandum, Public Analyst's report, etc., before the C.D.M.O. for launching prosecution report. The C.D.M.O., after going through the documents, issued written consent for launching prosecution and also sanctioned the prosecution. On 31-10-1987, the C.D.M.O., Bolangir, forwarded the Prosecution Report to the Court.

(3.) The plea of the respondent was complete denial of the allegations.