SISINTI HARIBANDHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- The petitioner has been convicted under S.16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for selling adulterated food article and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine for rupees one thousand in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aska. On appeal, the conviction and sentence have been upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur.

(2.) The petitioner had a grocery shop in his village which was visited by the Food Inspector (P.W. 1) on 18-9-1978. He had been accompanied by the two Sanitary Inspectors (P.Ws. 2 and 3). After giving their identity, P.W. 1 inspected the articles exposed for sate and suspecting the quality of Besan and groundnut oil, expressed his desire to take sample of those two articles for analysis. P.W. 1 thereafter served the necessary notice and purchased 375 grames of groundnut oil and 750 grammes of Besan on payment of price thereof and Ext. 2 is the sale receipt granted by the petitioner. P.W. 1 thereafter divided each of the samples into three equal parts, kept them in dry, clean bottles which were duly corked and sealed. He sent one sample bottle of groundnut oil and one such bottle of Besan to the Against for analysis. The Analyst on examination opined the, groundnut oil to be adulterated where after the Food Inspector obtained necessary sanction from the Chief District Medical Officer for filing prosecution and then gave the prosecution report. It is pertinent to note that five days after the sale in question, the petitioner wrote to the Analyst that the oil he had sold was not groundnut oil, but palm oil. This letter of the petitioner is Ext. 9. The report of the Analyst has been exhibited as Ext. 13.

(3.) The petitioner in his defence did not deny the factum of sale to the Food inspector, but contended that the Inspector did not follow the procedure laid down under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, inasmuch as he did not can any independent witness as required under S.10(7) of the Act. The petitioner also denied the fact that the oil in question was adulterated.