BICHITRANANDA NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted under Section 16 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 3 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - or in default to undergo R. I. for a further period of one month.

(2.) THE petitioner owns a grocery shop at Choudwar. The Food Inspector (P. W. 1) inspected his shop on 4 -10 -74 at about 3 p.m. and found 7 Kgs. of mustard oil stored for sale. He took samples of the oil after complying with the formalities. One of the samples was handed over to the petitioner and another was sent to the Public Analyst on 7 -10 -74 and the third sample was retained by the Food Inspector. In his report dated 31 -7 -74 (sic) the Public Analyst certified that the sample was adulterated. On the basis of his opinion, prosecution was launched after necessary sanction by the Chief District Medical Officer. The sample which had been made over to the petitioner was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory through the Court and in his report dated 17 -3 -76 the Director of the Central Food Laboratory also certified that the sample was adulterated. On the basis of this report and the evidence of the Food Inspector and other prosecution witnesses the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo R. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - or in default to undergo R. I. for one month more. On appeal, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge maintained the conviction and the sentence of fine but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to a period of three months.

(3.) ITEM A. 17.06 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 defines mustard oil as follows : -