BIJAYA KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence under S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The petitioner was a dealer of grocery articles of Dharamsala Market of Keonjhar town. On 23-1-1980 at 12-30 P.M. the Food Inspector (P.W. 2) inspected the grocery shop and suspected that turmeric whole kept inside the shop was moth-eaten and unfit for human consumption. Accordingly, he purchased 600 grams of turmeric whole and after compliance with the rules, the samples were kept in clean and dry bottles in equal parts and subsequently one of them was sent to the Public Analyst for opinion. The Public Analyst reported in his report (Ext. 4) to the effect that the sample of turmeric whole was damaged by insects and was adulterated in view of the provision of S.2(ia)(m) of the Act. After receipt of the report, it was found that there was a prima facie case of food adulteration against the petitioner and after obtaining the sanction for prosecution Ext. 5 from the Authorised Officer, the Chief District Medical Officer, prosecution report was submitted in court.

(3.) The petitioner took the defence that turmeric whole which had been purchased by the Food Inspector (P.W. 2) was kept in the store room of the grocery shop and was not exposed for sale for human consumption. Therefore, even if it might have been found by the Public Analyst that the same was adulterated, he did not commit the offence he was charged with.