RAMA CHANDRA SAHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur, upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, 'the Act') is under challenge.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details the prosecution case stated in brief is that the petitioner owns a grocery shop at Kalingia in Phulbani district. On 18-2-1978, Food Inspector, Phulbani (P.W. 2) inspected the grocery shop and suspected common salt exposed for sale for human consumption to be adulterated. Therefore, he made statutory purchase of 750 grams of that commodity on payment of price and after observance of the formalities according to rules, divided the same into three equal parts and kept each part separately in dry clean bottles, sealed and labelled them and sent one of the samples for examination by the public analyst. The public analyst reported in his report (Ext.5) that the sample of common salt was adulterated. After obtaining the consent of the Chief District Medical Officer, Phulbani, prosecution was launched against the petitioner.

(3.) The plea of the petitioner was a denial of the entire episode connected with the prosecution case, but the learned Judicial Magistrate, who held the trial and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, held concurrently that the Food Inspector (P.W. 2) had purchased common salt from the grocery shop of the petitioner which was found to have been adulterated after chemical examination by the public analyst in his report, Ext. 5. Therefore, the petitioner was convicted for the offence under S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month.