KEDAR PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted Under Section 16(1)(a) read with section 7(i) Prevention . of Food Adulteration Act (for short., 'the Act) to undergo rigorous imprisonment. four month and to pay a fine of Rs. is 500/ in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of months by the Sub -Divisional Judicial, Magistrate, Panposh, for selling ground nut -oil which was found on analysis to be conviction and sentence against the petitioner have Session Judge in appeal and hence the present revision .

(2.) ACCORDING to prosecution case, the petitioner is a grocery shop owner , On 27.10. 1978 the Food inspector, Sundargarh, and his peon (P. W 2) visited the shop premises of the petitioner at 10,15 a. m. and after duly the serving the notice (Ex. 2 ) took a sample of the refined ground -nut oil which was exhibited for sale in his shop on payment of the price of 5.35 as per Ex. 1. the sample was then divided into three parts and put into clean and dry bottles and then the bottles were duly fitted with corks and sealed and signature of the petitioner was obtained on the paper slip each bottle One of the bottles was sent to the Public Analyst for who opened as per Ms report (Ext. 4) that the sample of refined ground nut oil Was adulterated being not in conformity with the prescribed standard. On receiving the said report, a copy thereof was sent to the petitioner with the forwarding letter (Ext. 6 ) which the petitioner received, the acknowledgement being Ext. 7. On receiving due sanction, the prosecution report was launched against the petitioner. The sanction order has been exhibited as Ext. 5.

(3.) ON behalf of the prosecution only two witnesses were examined, namely, the Food Inspector {?, W. 1) and his peon (P. W. 2) and - on behalf of the defence one witness was examined. Relying on the evidence of p. ws. and 2, it has been found by both the Courts below petitioner did expose the nut oil for sale In his shop which was purchased by the Food inspector (P. W. 1) and which on analysis was found to be adulterated and, therefore, the petitioner has contravened the provisions of Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act.