GOPINATH BALIARSINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision the petition has challenged the order by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld his conviction and sentence for having committed an offence under section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act ('Act' for short).

(2.) Facts : The petitioner is a grocer in the hilly tract of R. Udayagiri in Ganjam district. On 9-9-1978 P.W. 1, a Food Inspector, arrived in his shop with P.W. 2, a Sanitary Inspector and P.W. 3, a Peon, and purchased from the petitioner 375 grams of til oil suspected to have been adulterated and sent the same duly packed according to rules for examination to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst in his report (Ext. 18) reported that the sample til oil was adulterated. After receipt of the report and compliance of the necessary formalities, prosecution report was submitted against the petitioner for exposing adulterated til oil meant for human consumption in his shop.

(3.) During trial, the defence of the petitioner was that til oil exposed for sale in his shop out of which the sample was sold to P.W. 1 was not meant for human consumption, because in that locality til oil is generally and commonly used for other purposes, such as, massaging the body.