NARAYAN DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj -Keonjhar in Criminal Appeal No. 78 -K of 1975 confirming an order of conviction of the Petitioner under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act No. 37 of 1954) (hereinafter called the 'Act') and sentence to undergo S. I. for one week and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/ -, in default to undergo S. I. for a further period of one week passed by the Subordinate Judge -cum -Magistrate 1st Class, Keonjhar.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the Petitioner was a retail grocer at Harichandanpur bazar and one Gurucharan Prusti (p. w. 3) was his Salesman. On 29 -9 -1974 at about 1. 30 p. m. the Food Inspector (p. w. 1) inspected the shop of the Petitioner and suspecting that Niger oil and Bengal gram stored for sale in the shop to be adulterated made a statutory purchase of Niger oil and Bengal gram from the Salesman Gurucharan Prusti (p. w. 3) in the absence of the Petitioner from the shop after serving requisite notice (Ext. 1). He also obtained a receipt (Ext. 2) from p. w.3 in evidence of the purchase made p. w. 1 sent the articles purchased by him to the Public Analyst, Government of Orissa and obtained his opinion as per Exts. 6 and 7 that the samples of Niger Oil and Bengal Gram were adulterated. On receipt of the report he obtained order of sanction and filed the prosecution report before the Magistrate against the accused Petitioner, who, according to p. w. 1, was the owner of the shop.

(3.) MR . Das, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner has been illegally convicted; that he is neither the owner of the shop nor he has sold the articles; that he was not present in the shop: that the owner of the shop is p. w. 3 ; and that assuming for the sake of argument that the Petitioner is the owner of the shop, the provisions of Sections 10(7) and 11(4) of the Act and Rules 7(3) and 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called the Rules) have not been complied with and the Petitioner IS entitled to acquittal.