SILLA NARAYANAMURTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act of 1955 on the allegation that there was violation of Clause 10 of the Orissa Baby Food Licensing Order, 1966. The trying Magistrate sentenced him to four months' rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 5001 - or in default, directed further rigorous imprisonment for three weeks more. He also directed confiscation of the seized baby food. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction and sentenced but vacated the direction for confiscation of Lactodex and Lactogen.

(2.) MR . Misra for the Petitioner raises several contentions in support of the revision application, but it is unnecessary to deal with all of them, as in my opinion, the application has to succeed on a preliminary ground. Orissa Baby Food Licencing Order, 1966 came into force in August, 1966. 'Baby food' has been defined in Clause 2(i) to mean 'a food as specified in Schedule 1'. Schedule I originally contained 7 Items being (1) Amul milk food for babies, (2) Cenac baby food, (3) Glaxo, (4) Horlicks, (5) Lactogen, (6) Lactodex and (7) Oster milk. In the instant case, the prosecution is for Amul Spray. Amul Spray as such was not included in Schedule 1. In February, 1972, there was an amendment to the schedule and in place of the first item, Amul alone was substituted and as Hem No. 8 Amul Spray was added. As has been held by this Court in the case at Santikumar v. State, I.L.R. 1975 Cutt. 86 the amendment of February, 1972, had not been notified and as such, the amendment did nut become part of the statute. The relevant portion from the reported judgment may be extracted: