MD. ABDUL WAHAB Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner having been convicted under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act ') and sentenced to undergo R. I. for six months and pay fine of Rs. 1000/ - in default to undergo R. I. for one month more also confirmed in appeal has preferred this revision.

(2.) THE accusations against the Petitioner are that he is the owner, of a grocery shop at Keonjhar which was visited in his presence by the Food Inspector (p.w. 1) along with p.w. 2. the Peon of the Health Department on 7 -8 -1981 while the accused No. 2, the nephew of the Petitioner who has since been acquitted was present. After inspecting the stock, p.w. 1 suspected the mustard oil to be adulterated and served a notice on the accused No. 2 at the spot who refused to accept it. He thereafter purchased 750 grams of mustard oil and paid Rs. 12.35 paise in lieu of price thereof. The oil so purchased was divided into three equal parts for the purpose of samples and each part was kept in dean bottles and after packing, sealing and labelling the samples, he sent one of he bottles to the Public Analyst along with the specimen .impression of the seal separately. On receipt of the Public Analyst 's report that the sample mustard oil was adulterated, the Food Inspector submitted the prosecution report after obtaining sanction from the Chief District Medical Officer, Keonjhar.

(3.) SO far as Section 10 (7) of the Act is concerned, it is the contention of Mr. Misra that where a Food Inspector takes action under Section 10 (1) (a) of the Act to take samples of any articles of food from any person selling such articles, he has the obligation to call one or more persons to be present at the time when the action is taken and also to take his or their signatures. The submission is in terms of the provisions of the section itself. The requirement to call one or more persons was interpreted in Ram Labhaya v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. : A.I.R. 1974 S.C.789, as calling of independent persons and casting a duty on the Food Inspector to try and secure the presence of one or more such persons though however it was observed that ' when he makes the effort but none are willing to co -operate, he could not certainly compel their presence and that the prosecution would be relieved of its obligation if such a fact is shown. The decision has also been followed by this Court in Sitaram Thirani v. State of Orissa : 42 (1976) C.L.T. 1084, and also in Chatiram Chandwani v. State; wherein : 48 (1979) C.L.T. 583 it was observed that the prosecution in order to prove that the seizure of the food stuff was done in the manner prescribed under the law, must show by adducing convincing evidence that the peremptory formalities were followed or that those could not be followed due to certain reasons.