STATE OF ORISSA Vs. PURANMAL AGRAWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State is the appellant against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magisrate First Class, Birmaharajpur in 2 (c) CC No. 3 of 1985/T.R.No. 132 of 1985 registered for the offences committed under Sec. 16(1)(a)(i) in contravention of Section 7 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief was that on 12.6.1985 the Food Inspector, Bolangir (P.W.No. 3) inspected the grocery shop of the accused -respondent in village Naikpara under Birmaharajpur Police Station. Having suspected the Besan kept in the shop to the adulterated, he served a notice in writing to the accused expressing his desire to purchase 600 grams of Besan for examination by the Public Analyst to know the exact adulteration. P.W.No. 3 after purchasing the Besan divided it into three equal parts complied with all formalities and obtained the signature in the three sample bottles. The Food Inspector sent one part of the same Besan with a copy of memorandum to Public Analyst, Orissa, Bhubaneswar by Registered Parcel and sent a copy of memorandum with specimen impression of the seal to the Public Analyst, Orissa separately by Registered Post. The other two sample bottles with two copies of memorandum were depisited with the Local Health Authority, the C.D.M.O., Bolangir. On 26.7.1985 P.W.No. 3 received the Public Analyst report from the C.D.M.O., Bolangir and as per the verbal order of the C.D.M.O., he submitted prosecution report on 14.8.1985 alongwith the sanction order obtained from the Local Health Officer -cum -C.D.M.O., Bolangir. The C.D.M.O. intimated the accused alongwith a Public Analyst Report to make an application before the Court within ten days of receipt of the intimation letter to get the sample reanalyzed by the Central Food Laboratory, if he so deisred. However the accused had not preferred to ask for further examination of the said sample.

(3.) P .W.No. 1 is a local independent witness at the place of occurrence. He has denied his knowledge regarding the collection of sample by the Food Inspector from the shop of the accused. He stated that he had signed three papers without knowing the contents thereof. P.W.No. 2 is the Peon of the C.D.M.O. Office who had accompanied the Food Inspector. According to him he had accompanied the Food Inspector Sri A. Naik to Naikpara who visited the grocery shop of the accused on 12.8.1985 whereas the date of occurrence is on 12.6.1985. He had proved the notice issued by the Food Inspector for collection of sample. P.W.No. 3 has disclosed in his evidence to have collected the sample of Besan on 12.6.1985 and to have served notice on the accused before purchase of 600 grams of Besan and has supported the prosecution story in toto. The learned trial Court has observed that the oral statement of P.W.No. 3 does not support the seizure. Learned Magistrate has further observed that the sample of Besan was sent to Public Analyst on 12.6.1985 and received back by the C.D.M.O. on 26.7.1985 and thus in between the date 13.6.1985 and 26.7.1985 the sample Besan was examined by the Public Analyst whereas Ext. 6 does not disclose the date of examination of the sample of Besan. The custodia of the sample bottles of Besan during such period was not specifically pleaded and proved by the prosecution. Taking into consideration the cross examination of P.W.No. 3 that he had collected the sample of Besan from a stock of 90 to 95 kilograms kept in a gunny bag inside the grocery shop of the accused and that such fact was not disclosed in the prosecution report, the learned Magistrate has doubted his testimony.