THE FOOD INSPECTOR, NOTIFIED AREA COUNCIL Vs. LAXMINARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Bhadrak in Criminal Case No. 3 C.C. 12/65.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is as follows : On 28 -1 -1965 the Food Inspector, Bhadrak N.A.C., visited the accused's shop at Chandan Bazar within the jurisdiction of Bhadrak N.A.C. and found about 20 bags of Arhar Dal stored in the said shop godown for sale as an article of human food. The Food Inspector (p.w. 3) bad issued an advance intimation to the accused, and on the aforesaid date purchased 700 grams of the Raid Dal as sample for getting the same tested and analysed. In the presence of the accused the said sample was kept in three clean and sealed bottles. One of them was given to the accused, the second one was sent to the Public Analyst, Orissa, for chemical analysis, and the third bottle was kept with p.w. 3 himself. The Public Analyst submitted his report Ext. I stating that the colouring matter detected in the sample was Metanil yellow (Coaltar dye) and opined therein that the sample was adulterated as the said colouring matter was not permitted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as the P.F.A. Rules). On this report p.w. 3, the Health and Food Inspector, Bhadrak N.A.C., drew up a prosecution report against the accused, and on obtaining the sanction of the Executive Officer, N.A.C., submitted the same to the S.D.M., Bhadrak, for the prosecution of the accused. The said complaint was withdrawn, as the sanction of the Bhadrak N.A.C. as such was not obtained on the same, and was resubmitted on 11 -12 -1965 with the proper sanction of the Councillors of Bhadrak N.A.C. and this case under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) proceeded against the accused.

(3.) THE prosecution examined three witnesses. p.w. 3, the Health & Food Inspector, Bhadrak N.A.C. purchased the sample from the accused in his shop in the presence of p.ws. 1 and 2, who were respectively the Inspector of Vigilance, and the Food and Health Inspector, Bhadrak. These three witnesses narrated in detail the facts regarding the purchase, the seizure of the sample from the accused, and sealing the same in bottles at (sic) shop. These witnesses corroborated each other regarding the above facts they narrated, and there was no challenge to the above aspect of their evidence by the defence. The defence examined one witness, a businessman of the locality, whose evidence would be discussed in the proper context if necessary.