MOHANLAL KRISHNA KUMAR Vs. CUTTACK MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as Tthe accused) assails the order of conviction under sec. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short Act) and sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Cuttack, and confirmed by the appellate Court.

(2.) Shortly put, the prosecution case is that on 20-3-1986 at about 4 p.m. the Food Inspector, Cuttack Municipality (P.W. 1) inspected the business premises of the accused situated at Malgodown, Cuttack, and having suspected Arhar dal, an article of food kept for sale for human consumption, to be adulterated, made a statutory purchase of 600 grams, divided the same into three equal parts, kept each part in clean, dry and empty glass bottles properly packed and sealed the same and sent one of the sample bottles to the Public Analyst for examination and on receipt of the report from the Analyst that the Arhar dal was adulterated, launched prosecution after having obtained written consent as required under the Act. To substantiate the charge the prosecution examined three witnesses including the Food Inspector, P.W. 1.

(3.) The accused when examined under Section 313. Cr. P.C. admitted taking of sample of Arhar dal by the Food Inspector. P.W. 1 from his business premises. He, however, denied the rest part of the prosecution case that the sample of TArhar dalT was adulterated and that the Public Analysts report on which reliance was heavily placed by the prosecution was never supplied to him.