BUPDEO SANTHOLIA Vs. CUTTACK MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THAKURLAL Satholia (since deceased) was convicted under Section 16 (l) (a) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to a fine of Rs 300. As the appeal was filed by the son of the deceased, the appellate Court directed that he would not undergo any imprisonment in default of payment of fine, but the fine would be realised according to law.

(2.) ON 28-2-63 P. W. 1, the Food Inspector of Cuttack Municipality, inspected the grocery shop of the accused in Buxi Bazar within the municipal area of Cuttack city, He purchased a small quantity of Arhar dal suspecting it to be adulterated. A sample of the Arhar dal purchased was seized in presence of two witnesses -Vigilance inspector (P. W. 2) and the Sanitary Inspector (P. W. 3 ). The sample was divided into 3 parts and sealed in three empty bottles one of which was handed over to the accused. Out of the two bottles taken by P. W. 1, one was sent to the Public Analyst who reported that the sample contained colouring materials yellow (Coaltar dye present) and who was of opinion that the sample was adulterated as aforesaid colouring matter was prohibited for use under the prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The prosecution was launched after obtaining sanction of the Chairman of the Cuttack Municipality. The defence was one of denial. The accused pleaded that the sample sold to the food Inspector (P. W. 1) was not of the very article sold by the accused, that the provisions of Section 10 (7) of the Act had not been complied with and that the article sold was purchased by him in the same condition from the wholesaler.

(3.) MR. Murty advanced two contentions: